Emma Castro-Sanchez, et al v. Eric H. Holder Jr, No. 08-71662 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAR 14 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EMMA ELIZABETH CASTROSANCHEZ, a.k.a. Emma Elizabeth Campos Mejia; MANUEL DE JESUS CASTRO-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jose Rafael Campos Mejia; WENDY CLARIBEL CACERES-SALINAS, a.k.a. Wendy Claribel Campos Mejia, No. 08-71662 Agency Nos. A099-532-533 A099-532-534 A099-532-537 MEMORANDUM * Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2011 ** Before: FARRIS, O SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. * 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). Emma Elizabeth Castro-Sanchez, Manuel de Jesus Castro-Sanchez, and Wendy Claribel Caceres-Salinas, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order summarily affirming their appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate the harm they suffered from gang members or from their uncle was on account of a protected ground. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004). We do not reach petitioners contentions that they were harmed on account of an imputed political opinion or that they are members of a particular social group based on their family ties because these distinct claims were not presented to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence also supports the finding that petitioners do not have a well-founded fear of future persecution because they can reasonably relocate within El Salvador. See Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th Cir. 2004) (when there is no past persecution, petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating 2 08-71662 that relocation is unreasonable); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i). Accordingly, petitioners asylum claims fail. Because petitioners failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that they have not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, petitioners withholding of removal claims also fail. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 08-71662
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.
