MOLINA MENJIVAR v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-22No. No. 19-72344

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of the appeal is upheld.

Lorena G. Molina Menjivar, a Salvadoran citizen, appealed an immigration judge's denial of her asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal, and she sought court review. The court examined whether substantial evidence supported the agency's factual findings regarding her claims.

The court found that the agency properly determined Molina Menjivar did not establish that any harm she experienced or feared was connected to a protected ground under asylum law—such as political opinion, religion, nationality, race, or membership in a particular social group. Random criminal violence and gang-related theft, standing alone, do not qualify. Similarly, the court upheld the denial of Convention Against Torture relief because Molina Menjivar failed to demonstrate that torture by or with the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government was more likely than not.

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

Key issues

Whether harm from criminal violence bears a nexus to a protected ground for asylum
Whether applicant established likelihood of government-sponsored torture under CAT
Sufficiency of evidence to support asylum and withholding of removal denials

Procedural posture

The case came before the appellate court on petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming 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 **

Lorena G. Molina Menjivar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judges decision denying her 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 Molina Menjivar failed to establish the harm she experienced or fears in El Salvador was or would be on account of a protected ground. See 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, Molina Menjivars asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys denial of CAT relief because Molina Menjivar failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if she returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.