FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CONSUELO MARGARITA DE LEON- No. 09-71594
RIVAS,
Agency No. A099-672-883
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 5, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Consuelo Margarita De Leon-Rivas, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny
the petition for review.
Eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal requires a well-founded
fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion by either a government official or
individuals whom the government is unable or unwilling to control. Santos-Lemus
v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence in the record
supports the BIA’s denial of De Leon-Rivas’s application for asylum and
withholding of removal because De Leon-Rivas failed to show a well-founded fear
of persecution if returned to El Salvador by an individual whom the government is
unable or unwilling to control. Therefore, the Court need not reach whether De
Leon-Rivas has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her membership
in a particular social group.
To obtain protection under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant
must show that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if she is removed
to the country of removal “‘by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official.’” Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747 (quoting 8
C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)). Substantial evidence in the record supports the BIA’s
conclusion that De Leon-Rivas is not entitled to protection under the Convention
Against Torture because she failed to show that if she returns to El Salvador she
will be tortured, and that public officials will consent or acquiesce to the torture.
We do not have jurisdiction to consider whether De Leon-Rivas should be
granted asylum for humanitarian reasons, see Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16,
19 (BIA 1989), because De Leon-Rivas did not exhaust this ground for relief
before the BIA, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION DENIED.