Opinion
19-72908
07-29-2021
ROSALIA SALVADORA VILLALOBOS DE CONSTANZA; et al., Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted July 19, 2021.[**]
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A208-783-912 A208-783-913.
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Rosalia Salvadora Villalobos De Constanza and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that petitioners failed to establish that the Salvadoran government was or would be unable or unwilling to control the people they fear. See Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (record did not compel the conclusion that the government was unable or unwilling to control the individuals petitioner feared); see also Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) ("To reverse the BIA, we must determine that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it . . .") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, petitioners' asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Villalobos De Constanza failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary "state action" for CAT relief).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. [*] 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).