Marta Merino-De Ramirez v. Merrick Garland

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTA DE LOS ANGELES MERINO- No. 20-70087 DE RAMIREZ; DORA IVETTE RAMIREZ-MERINO, Agency Nos. A209-900-105 A209-900-104 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 15, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: TASHIMA, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). Petitioner Marta de Los Angeles Merino-de Ramirez and her minor daughter,1 natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing the appeal of a decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), who denied their 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. 1. The agency’s finding that Petitioner failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution is supported by substantial evidence. See Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that the agency’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence). Petitioner described no incidents of harm or threats, but only her generalized fear of the gang members outside her home and her fear of the gang members someday having another shootout with the police. Fear of “general crime and violence” alone typically “is not a basis on which relief will be granted.” Hernandez-Galand v. Garland, 996 F.3d 1030, 1037 (9th Cir. 2021); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be 1 Petitioner’s minor daughter’s claims are derivative of her claims. For ease of reference, we will refer to the claims as Petitioner’s alone. 2 free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Nor are the vague, unfulfilled threats against Petitioner’s brother sufficient to establish persecution. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2021 (“[W]e have explained that although harm to a petitioner’s close relatives, friends, or associates may contribute to a successful showing of past persecution, it must be part of a pattern of persection closely tied to [Petitioner herself].” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (explaining that, although “credible ‘death threats alone can constitute persecution,’ . . . they constitute ‘persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm’” (first quoting Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir. 2000); and then quoting Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals