MENENDEZ MARTINEZ v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-19No. No. 15-72172

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that the applicant failed to establish his harm was on account of a protected ground and failed to demonstrate likelihood of torture by or with government acquiescence, making his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims ineligible for relief.

Orlando Menendez-Martinez, a Salvadoran citizen, sought court review of immigration authorities' rejection of his asylum, withholding of removal, and torture convention relief applications. The court examined whether substantial evidence supported the agency's factual findings and determined that Menendez-Martinez had not demonstrated his alleged harm was connected to any protected characteristic such as political opinion, nationality, religion, race, or membership in a particular social group. Instead, the record showed his difficulties stemmed from personal disputes and criminal activity motivated by theft or random violence, which do not qualify as persecution under asylum law.

The court also found substantial evidence supporting denial of torture relief because Menendez-Martinez failed to prove it was more likely than not that he would face torture by the Salvadoran government or with its consent if returned. The court rejected his arguments that procedural violations or evidentiary errors occurred during the immigration proceedings.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether harm from personal disputes and criminal violence constitutes persecution on a protected ground for asylum purposes
Whether applicant established likelihood of torture by or with acquiescence of the El Salvadoran government
Whether agency decision was supported by substantial evidence

Procedural posture

The applicant petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of asylum and related relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Orlando Menendez-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his 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 agencys factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Menendez-Martinez failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicants “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, Menendez-Martinezs asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys denial of CAT relief because Menendez-Martinez failed to show it is more likely than not he 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).

We reject as unsupported by the record Menendez-Martinezs contentions that the agency violated his right to due process, ignored evidence, or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims.

As stated in the courts August 20, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.