Santos De Jesus v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 28, 2023
• Docket: 21-1319
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 28 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CLAUDIANE SANTOS DE No. 21-1319 JESUS and SARAH DERISSEAU SANTOS Agency Nos. A209-166-362 A209-166-363 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 26, 2023** Seattle, Washington

Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Claudiane Santos De Jesus petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ)

decision. The IJ denied her applications for asylum (on which her minor child is

listed as a beneficiary), withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and

deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Santos is not a

member of her proposed particular social group of “Brazilian single mothers who

resist Brazilian criminal gang demands” because Santos identifies no evidence that

she resisted the men who robbed her, and she conceded that she did not physically

react or say anything during the robberies. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987

F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2021). Likewise, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

determination that the men who robbed Santos did not impute to her a political

opinion of resisting criminal gang demands because Santos presents no evidence of

the men’s political views or that they perceived her as holding that political

opinion. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031–33 (9th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Santos

failed to show that any past persecution was on account of a protected ground.

2 Thus, she failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal.1

See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B), 1231(b)(3)(A).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Santos failed to

establish eligibility for CAT protection because Santos presents only generalized

country condition reports that do not show that she would be subject to torture

upon return to Brazil with the consent or acquiescence of the Brazilian

government. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)

(per curiam). And because Santos did not report the robberies to the police, the

record does not compel a conclusion that the police would consent to or acquiesce

in any future harm to Santos. See Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir.

2010), overruled on other grounds by Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d

1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

PETITION DENIED.

1 Santos does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to establish “a well-founded fear of future persecution or a clear probability of harm based on a protected ground,” and has thus abandoned a challenge to that determination. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2013). 3