NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-71044
OSCAR ARMANDO DUENAS-
ESCOBAR,
Agency No.
A209-950-310
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and RAYES,*** District
Judge.
*
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 and grants the parties’ joint motion to submit the case on the
briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Oscar Duenas-Escobar, a national of El Salvador, entered the
United States without valid entry documentation or inspection and was
subsequently apprehended by immigration officials. Duenas was charged as
removable, but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). After a full merits hearing, the Immigration
Judge (IJ) determined that Duenas was ineligible for relief and subject to removal.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Duenas petitions for review.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and examine the BIA’s legal
conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-
Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations
omitted). We deny the petition.
The BIA did not err in rejecting Duenas’ asylum claim, which alleged a
well-founded fear of persecution due to his alleged membership in the particular
social group (PSG) of “young Salvadorans who resist corrupt practices of police
officers.” Duenas’ proffered PSG is not cognizable because it lacks social
distinction. No evidence in the record indicates that Salvadoran society perceives
those who resist police corruption as a distinct group. Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750
F.3d 1077, 1084 (9th Cir. 2014). In addition, substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s determination that Duenas failed to establish a nexus between the harm
suffered and a protected ground. Notably, substantial evidence supports the
2 20-71044
conclusion that the police-harm stemmed from Officer Montes’ personal vendetta
against Duenas because of his relationship with Rosa, and that the gang-harm arose
from Duenas’s refusal to sell drugs for the 18-street gang. See Pagayon v. Holder,
642 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A personal dispute is not, standing alone,
tantamount to persecution based on an imputed political opinion.”).
Because Duenas did not meet the lower asylum burden of proof, substantial
evidence necessarily supports the BIA’s determination that Duenas did not
establish that he would more likely than not suffer persecution in El Salvador on
account of a protected ground for withholding of removal purposes. Halaim v. INS,
358 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2004). Contrary to Duenas’ argument—that the BIA
committed harmful error by failing to consider whether Officer Montes was driven
by mixed motives in harming Duenas—the BIA found the potential link between
the gang threat and the police beating no more than speculative. However, even if
the BIA had concluded that Officer Montes was affiliated with the 18-street gang,
despite Duenas’ testimony to the contrary, and beat Duenas because of both his
relationship with Rosa and his refusal to sell drugs for the gang, such a finding
would still not establish that Duenas would more likely than not suffer persecution
on account of his membership in a cognizable PSG.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Duenas did not
establish eligibility for CAT protection, concluding it is not more likely than not
3 20-71044
that Duenas would be tortured in El Salvador. Unuakhaulu v. Ashcroft, 416 F.3d
931, 938–39 (9th Cir. 2005). Particularly, the BIA determined that it was
speculative that Officer Montes would seek to harm, much less torture, Duenas
when he had not seen Officer Montes in years. Duenas provided no evidence that
Officer Montes continues to look for him, and Duenas has had no further contact
with Rosa. It similarly determined that Duenas has not shown a likelihood that
gangs would seek to torture him when members of the 18-street gang had only
threatened him on one occasion years prior.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 20-71044