FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA CECILIA ALEMAN-VILLAGRAN, No. 13-70403
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-802-365
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ana Cecilia Aleman-Villagran, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
novo questions of law, Annachamy v. Holder, 733 F.3d 254, 258 (9th Cir. 2013),
and for substantial evidence the factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the one incident in which
several gang members confronted and threatened Aleman-Villagran did not
constitute past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.
2003); see also Lim v. Ashcroft, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats
standing alone [] constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and
only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or
harm.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Substantial evidence also
supports the IJ’s finding that Aleman-Villagran failed to establish the government
of El Salvador is unwilling or unable to control the people who threatened her. See
Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); see also
Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[E]ven if we might
have reached a conclusion different from that reached by the [IJ], we may not
reverse unless we determine that any reasonable factfinder would have been
compelled to reach that conclusion.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Thus, Aleman-Villagran’s asylum claim fails.
2 13-70403
Because Aleman-Villagran failed to establish eligibility for asylum, her
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Aleman-Villagran’s CAT
claim because she failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be
tortured if returned to El Salvador. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36
(9th Cir. 2011).
Finally, we reject Aleman-Villagran’s due process contention regarding the
BIA’s summary affirmance. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848-
50 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-70403