NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIOMARA ISABEL HURTADO- No. 18-71541
PALACIOS; MADIGAN NICOL AMAYA-
HURTADO; DOUGLAS BLADIMIR Agency Nos. A208-273-740
AMAYA-HURTADO, AKA Douglas A208-273-741
Bladimir Hurtado-Palacios, A208-273-742
Petitioners,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2023**
Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Xiomara Isabel Hurtado-Palacios and her two minor children are natives and
citizens of El Salvador. They petition for review of the Board of Immigration
*
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).
Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
The petitioners also challenge the agency’s adverse credibility finding, but
we need not decide this issue. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion
that, assuming credibility, the petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum,
withholding of removal, or CAT protection.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioners
failed to establish their entitlement to asylum and withholding of removal.
Palacios asserts that she is a member of the particular social group composed of
“individuals who have taken concrete steps to oppose gang membership and gang
authority.” See Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1084–85 (9th Cir. 2014). But
the record does not compel the conclusion that Palacios defied the demands made
of her by gang members, and she thus fails to demonstrate that the BIA erred when
it concluded that she did not belong to this particular social group. See Parada v.
Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908–09 (9th Cir. 2018).
Nor did the BIA err in determining that Palacios and her children were not
persecuted and do not have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of
their family relationship to Palacios’s aunt. The petitioners admit that gang
members did not specifically target Palacios’s aunt; rather, the gang members
2
targeted all similarly situated shopkeepers. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals
motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a
protected ground.”). And Palacios’s aunt still lives in El Salvador and has not been
harmed by gangs. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We
have . . . held that a petitioner’s fear of future persecution is weakened, even
undercut, when similarly-situated family members living in the petitioner's home
country are not harmed.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioners
failed to establish their entitlement to CAT protection. To support their CAT
claims, the petitioners reassert the same arguments that they raised in support of
asylum and withholding of removal. But even assuming that the petitioners would
experience severe pain or suffering upon their return to El Salvador, they provide
minimal evidence to support the conclusion that such pain and suffering would be
inflicted by, or with the acquiescence of, the Salvadoran government. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2). A reasonable factfinder thus would not be compelled to find the
petitioners eligible for CAT protection.
DENIED.
3