Opinion
20-70130
11-21-2022
ALMA STEFANY CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 17, 2022 San Jose, California
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. A205-078-318
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Alma Stefany Castillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, timely petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT").
The BIA adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge's decision that had found Petitioner credible but concluded that she had not suffered harm amounting to past persecution in El Salvador and, further, that she had not shown that any past harm or threats of future harm were on account of a protected ground. Those findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005) (determining that the threats the petitioner received did not rise to the level of persecution where the petitioner suffered no physical harm and received vague, anonymous threats). At most the evidence established Petitioner's fear of gang violence, which we have held does not relate to or constitute a protected ground. See Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of protection under CAT. Although we recognize the level of violence that exists in El Salvador, the record does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner would be targeted for torture if returned to El Salvador. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 891 (9th Cir. 2021).
Petitioner's Motion to Remand, Docket No. 46, is denied.
PETITION DENIED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).