MARIO MELGAR-SALAZAR V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-71566 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIO ANTONIO MELGAR-SALAZAR; et al., No. 18-71566 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A208-158-309 A208-155-047 A208-158-310 A208-158-311 A208-155-048 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM* On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 12, 2019** Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Mario Antonio Melgar-Salazar, his wife, and three children, 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 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief * 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). under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review The agency did not err in finding that petitioners failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm petitioners experienced and fear in El Salvador has no nexus to a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [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 2 18-71566 ground.”). 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 v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 18-71566
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.
