LILIANA SERRANO V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 17-73353 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LILIANA ELIZABETH SERRANO; et al., Petitioners, No. 17-73353 Agency Nos. A208-376-154 A208-376-153 v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Liliana Elizabeth Serrano and her son, 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 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determination that their past harm did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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”); see also Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner “failed to make a compelling showing of the requisite objective component of a well-founded fear of persecution”). In light of our conclusion, we do not reach petitioners’ contention as to their particular social group. Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not that they will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too 2 17-73353 speculative). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-73353

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.