Marcio SILVA-GALDINO; Taynara Lopes-Martins Ribeiro, Petitioners, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: September 04, 2020
Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Peter Duong, Law Offices of Peter Duong, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners Christina P. Greer, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Marcio Silva-Galdino,1 a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that Silva-Galdino failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant'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”); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, Silva-Galdino's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT protection because Silva-Galdino failed to show he would more likely than not be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Brazil.2 See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1. Marcio Silva-Galdino is the lead petitioner. His step-daughter, Taynara Lopes-Martins Ribeiro, is a derivative claimant on Silva-Galdino's application. No independent evidence was presented on her behalf, and her claims are entirely dependent on Silva-Galdino's. Thus, our holdings on Silva-Galdino's application apply equally to both petitioners.
2. The record does not support Silva-Galdino's argument on appeal that the agency applied an “erroneous legal standard” to the CAT claim by using the phrase “clear probability of future torture.” Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721-22 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We cannot say on this record that the evidence compels us to find that [the alien] meets the clear probability standard.”)
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.