NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DELMI LOPEZ-ROMERO, No. 15-72760
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-254-660
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 11, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Delmi Lopez Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) 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 Torture
*
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).
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual
findings for substantial evidence. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir.
2014). “Factual findings ‘are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would
be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id., quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of Lopez Romero’s request
for asylum and withholding of removal. Specifically, substantial evidence supports
the Board’s determination that Lopez Romero “failed to carry her burden of proving
past persecution, a reasonable likelihood of future persecution on account of a
protected ground, or a clear probability that her life or freedom would be threatened
on account of a protected ground if she were returned to El Salvador.” The record
shows that Lopez Romero’s main evidence for any alleged past persecution is based
on “six phone calls over a period of seven months by a person named Luis.” Dkt.
No. 4 at 84. Although she alleges that the telephone calls threatened her and her
children, they were never hurt or even approached by “Luis.”
We agree with the IJ that these telephone calls simply do not constitute
persecution, “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our
society regards as offensive.” Ghaly v. I.N.S., 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir. 1995).
Indeed, we have repeatedly held that “mere threats, without more, [are not] enough
to constitute past persecution.” Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 937 (9th Cir. 2000). For
2
similar reasons, substantial evidence also supports the Board’s determination that
there is a lack of well-founded fear of future persecution. The record shows that
gang members have not come looking for her or tried to contact her since the
threatening telephone calls. Moreover, since leaving El Salvador, her children,
mother, and brother continued to live in El Salvador and have not received any
additional telephone calls from gang members or had any problem with those gang
members in their daily lives. Finally, Lopez Romero failed even to provide any
direct evidence that shows Luis is part of any gang. Thus, there is substantial
evidence that she has no well-founded fear of future persecution and that she can
relocate in El Salvador.1
For similar reasons, substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of
CAT protection. There is no evidence that anyone is still looking for Lopez Romero
at all, let alone any proof that she “personally will face torture if [she] returns.”
Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 928 (9th Cir. 2020).
The petition for review is DENIED.
1
Because the Board held that Lopez Romero failed her burden of establishing
eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, there is no need to address
whether she also demonstrated membership in a cognizable particular social group
and a nexus to an enumerated ground. Cf. Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d
1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013).
3