GLENDA PORTILLO-LOPEZ V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 16-70673 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GLENDA MARINELIS PORTILLOLOPEZ; et al., No. 16-70673 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A202-032-816 A202-032-817 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 12, 2022** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Glenda Marinelis Portillo-Lopez and her minor son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish they suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also DuranRodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel the conclusion that threats rose to the level of persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in El Salvador. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails. In this case, because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. We do not reach petitioners’ contentions regarding the cognizability of their proposed particular social group because the agency did not deny relief on that 2 16-70673 ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if 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. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 16-70673
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.
