Glendis Azucena Romero; v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLENDIS AZUCENA ROMERO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73357
Agency Nos. A206-803-891
A206-803-892
A206-803-893
A206-767-730
A206-767-734
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Glendis Azucena Romero and her family, 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
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
* 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).
FILED
MAY 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73357
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact. Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Romero’s past
experiences in El Salvador do not rise to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani v.
Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel finding
of past persecution); see also Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“Threats standing alone ... constitute past persecution in only a small category of
cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual
suffering or harm.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Romero 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 Romero’s particular
social group contentions. Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
In this case, because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73357
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Romero failed to show it is more likely than not that she will be tortured with the
consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder,
589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --