Moran Lopez v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 21, 2023
• Docket: 21-883
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Sandra Guadalupe Moran Lopez; Sandra No. 21-883 Nicole Trinidad Moran, Agency Nos. A206-434-970 Petitioners, A206-434-971

v. MEMORANDUM* Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 15, 2023** Pasadena, California

Before: TASHIMA, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Sandra Guadalupe Moran Lopez and her daughter, Sandra Nicole

Trinidad Moran, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals dismissing their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Because the Board cited Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A.

1994), and expressed no disagreement with the immigration judge’s decision,

we review that decision as if it were the Board’s. Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d

1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009). We review the agency’s factual findings for

substantial evidence. Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2021).

Under that standard, the agency’s findings of fact are conclusive unless “any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Ren v.

Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)).

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Moran Lopez and her daughter did not show a nexus between any alleged

persecution and a protected ground. To obtain either asylum or withholding of

removal, an alien must demonstrate some connection between the harm she

fears and a protected ground. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142–43,

1146 (9th Cir. 2021). Petitioners offer no reason to believe that the extortion

and harassment they endured in El Salvador were anything other than

financially motivated “theft or random violence by gang members,” which

“bear[] no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016

(9th Cir. 2010).

2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that

Moran Lopez and her daughter did not show that it is more likely than not that

they would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official in

2 El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). Moran Lopez testified that she has

never interacted with the police in El Salvador, and that neither she nor her

daughter has ever had problems with the police in El Salvador. While Moran

Lopez believes the police are corrupt and has heard of gangs infiltrating the

police, the record shows that the government of El Salvador has been actively

combating gang activity. The record does not compel a conclusion contrary to

that of the agency.

The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 2) is denied. The temporary

stay of removal is lifted upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION DENIED.