WENDI TEJADA-RAMIREZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-71460 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 20 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS WENDI MARISOL TEJADA-RAMIREZ; CESAR OSMIN ALFARO-TEJADA, No. 10-71460 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A094-917-169 A094-917-170 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 1, 2013 ** Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Wendi Marisol Tejada-Ramirez and Cesar Osmin Alfaro-Tejada, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s conclusions that Petitioners did not experience past persecution and that their fear of future harm is too speculative to succeed. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, Petitioners are not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because Petitioners failed to establish that it is more likely than not that they would be tortured if they return to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-71460

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.