Opinion
17-72566
11-09-2022
JOSE G. FLORES, AKA Jose Gilberto Flores, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 7, 2022 Pasadena, 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. A094-306-572
Before: PARKER, KOH, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
MEMORANDUM
Jose Gilberto Flores ("Flores"), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions this court for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") of Flores's appeal of the decision by the Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. The BIA did not err in denying asylum and withholding of removal because Flores failed to establish a nexus between any harm he experienced or might experience and a protected ground. Flores claims membership in the particular social group of "Salvadoran men who fled El Salvador to escape the dramatic rise in common crime and now refuse to submit to such gang violence or corruption upon their return to El Salvador." Flores testified that the family with whom he was living prior to entering the United States received threats from a neighboring family, the members of which drank and attempted to instigate fights. He also testified that at some point, the grandfather of his host family was murdered by a member of the neighboring family, but that the neighboring family has since moved away and the murderer has since died. Additionally, he testified that, in an unrelated event, when he was waiting for the bus after having just been paid, he was robbed by members of Mara Salvatrucha, who took his watch, two chains, pay, and money. Assuming without deciding that Flores's claimed particular social group is cognizable and that these incidents rose to the level of persecution, Flores's evidence does not support a conclusion that membership in that group would be "a reason," let alone "one central reason," for his persecution. See Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir. 2021); Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017).
Nor can Flores's general evidence of violence in El Salvador or his general opposition to gang violence satisfy the nexus requirement. See Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding a petitioner's claim that he would be targeted as someone coming from the United States, which cited general conditions of violence in Mexico, insufficient to reverse the BIA's no-nexus conclusion); 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.").
2. The BIA's conclusion that Flores failed to show that he would more likely than not be tortured upon return to El Salvador is supported by substantial evidence. Flores's opening brief points to country conditions evidence showing that Salvadoran armed forces and police have received complaints of torture, but this evidence does not compel the conclusion that Flores would more likely than not be tortured. See Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019) (evidence of generalized conditions of violence are insufficient to establish that a petitioner would more likely than not be tortured).
PETITION DENIED.
The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.