NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 2 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTOS MAYRA BERRIOS- No. 15-70701
RODRIGUEZ, AKA Mayra Berrillo-
Rodriguez, AKA Mayra Berrios-Rodriguez; Agency Nos. A088-346-422
ELVIN AYALA-AYALA, A088-346-423
Petitioners,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 30, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Santos Mayra Berrios-Rodriguez and Elvin Ayala-Ayala, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
*
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).
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying Berrios-Rodriguez’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except
to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing
statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
Ayala-Ayala is a derivative asylum applicant based on his marriage to
Berrios-Rodriguez. He submitted an independent application on his own behalf
but did not appeal the IJ’s denial of that application to the BIA. Also, as the BIA
observed, Petitioners did not meaningfully challenge the IJ’s denials of
withholding of removal or CAT protection before the BIA. We lack jurisdiction to
consider those issues. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the harm inflicted
on Berrios-Rodriguez by her ex-boyfriend did not rise to the level of persecution.
See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Because persecution is
an extreme concept, it does not include every sort of treatment our society regards
2 15-70701
as offensive.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Duran-Rodriguez v.
Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“We have been most likely to find
persecution where threats are repeated, specific and combined with confrontation
or other mistreatment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The record does not support Petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to
consider evidence other than the single incident of violence that Berrios-Rodriguez
suffered. The BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions both expressly refer to that evidence.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-70701