Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Marcio SILVA-GALDINO; Taynara Lopes-Martins Ribeiro, Petitioners, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
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.
FOOTNOTES
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.”)
Response sent, thank you
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.
Docket No: No. 14-74044
Decided: September 04, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)