NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARGOTH PORTILLO-SANTOS; OSCAR No. 18-72002
OMAR MORALES-SANTOS,
Agency Nos. A202-139-106
Petitioners, A202-139-107
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Margoth Portillo-Santos and Oscar Omar Morales-Santos (together,
Petitioners) petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act and
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Portillo-Santos is a dual citizen of
Guatemala and El Salvador. Morales-Santos is a citizen of only Guatemala. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s
reasoning and added some of its own, we review the BIA’s decision and those
parts of the IJ’s decision upon which it relied.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052,
1059 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for review.
1. Portillo-Santos did not raise before the BIA and does not raise before
us any claims related to past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution,
or a likelihood of torture in El Salvador. This failure is dispositive of her claims for
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief as they relate to El Salvador. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no subject-matter
jurisdiction over legal claims “not presented in administrative proceedings
below”).
“[T]o receive asylum, a person of dual nationality must demonstrate a well-
founded fear of persecution in both countries.” Sung Kil Jang v. Lynch, 812 F.3d
1187, 1192 (9th Cir. 2015). Portillo-Santos’s failure to raise any asylum claim
related to El Salvador before the BIA is therefore also dispositive of her asylum
claim as it relates to Guatemala. Id.
2
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Portillo-Santos’s
withholding of removal claim and Morales-Santos’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims on the ground that they have not satisfied the nexus requirement.
See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (to meet the nexus
requirement, Petitioners must show “a risk of persecution on account of [their]
membership in the specified particular social group.” (cleaned up)).
Petitioners argue that they were persecuted by a gang “on account of [their]
membership in a particular social group consisting of those who belong to [the]
Santos family.” But substantial evidence—including Morales-Santos’s own
testimony that the interactions with the gang likely occurred because his father had
sent him money for “good shoes”—supports the agency’s determination that
Morales-Santos was approached by a gang not on the grounds of any family ties,
but because they wanted to recruit him to “further their criminal enterprise.”
Substantial evidence also supports the determination that the robbery Petitioners
experienced on a public bus was “merely a criminal act,” as the thieves stole from
everyone and did not target the family specifically. See Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d
634, 646 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[A]n applicant must show he was individually targeted
on account of a protected ground rather than simply the victim of generalized
violence.”).
3
Portillo-Santos additionally argues that she was persecuted because she is a
landowner. But a “personal vendetta” does not show a nexus to a protected ground,
and substantial evidence supports the determination that the verbal harassment
from Portillo-Santos’s neighbor was due to a personal land dispute. See Molina-
Morales v. I.N.S., 237 F.3d 1048, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2001).
3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners do
not qualify for CAT relief. Petitioners point to country condition reports discussing
violence by gang members in Guatemala. But generalized evidence of violence and
crime in a country is insufficient to prove that a specific individual faces a
likelihood of mistreatment rising to the level of torture. See Lalayan v. Garland, 4
F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (submitted country reports were insufficient to
establish eligibility for CAT relief because they did not indicate any particularized
risk of torture). Petitioners also point to their experiences in Guatemala. But
Petitioners have not shown that they experienced “an extreme form of cruel and
inhuman treatment that is specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental
pain or suffering,” as required for treatment to amount to torture. Lopez v. Sessions,
901 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).
PETITION DENIED.
4