Skip to main content

MORALES FLORES v. WILKINSON (2021)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Cecilia Beatriz MORALES-FLORES; et al., Petitioners, v. Robert M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 19-71556

Decided: January 27, 2021

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Alex Galvez, Counsel, Law Office Alex Galvez, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Joseph D. Hardy, Trial Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Raya Jarawan, Esquire, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

MEMORANDUM **

Cecilia Morales-Flores and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their applications 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that petitioners failed to establish they were or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); see also 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”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Morales-Flores 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).

As stated in the court's October 25, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Copied to clipboard