Sarahi Maldinero Ramos; Genisis Adriana Maldinero Ramos v. Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sarahi Maldinero Ramos; Genisis Adriana
Maldinero Ramos,
Petitioners,
v.
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-595
Agency Nos. A208-895-224
A208-895-225
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Lead Petitioner Sarahi Maldinero Ramos and Derivative Petitioner
Genisis Adriana Maldinero Ramos, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying their applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to 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
MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 21-595
Against Torture (CAT). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and
procedural history. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we
deny the petition for review.
We review questions of law de novo and the agency’s factual findings for
substantial evidence. See Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir.
2016). The BIA denied Petitioners’ claims for asylum and withholding after
concluding that they had not shown that those who harmed them were
motivated by their membership in the proposed particular social group of
“victims and . . . witnesses of criminal activity who have cooperated with law
enforcement” or their political opinion of “opposition to corruption and
criminality.” See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–60 (9th Cir.
2017) (explaining that the asylum statute requires that a protected ground “was
or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant,” while the
withholding statute requires applicants to demonstrate that their “life or freedom
would be threatened for a reason” such as race, religion, or political opinion
(citations omitted)). The BIA’s conclusion that neither nexus requirement was
satisfied is supported by substantial evidence because there is no indication in
the record that the Mara 18 gang members who threatened Petitioners knew that
Lead Petitioner had contacted the police or was cooperating with law
enforcement, and because the only apparent motive for the gang members’
threats was their desire to recruit Lead Petitioner. See, e.g., Macedo Templos v.
Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2021) (concluding that the less

-- 2 of 4 --

3 21-595
demanding nexus requirement for withholding was not met when the applicant
opined that criminals victimized him because he refused to comply with their
demands); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that
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
ground”). Because the agency’s finding that Petitioners failed to meet the nexus
requirement for asylum or withholding is supported by substantial evidence, we
need not and do not address the agency’s findings as to whether the threats rose
to the level of persecution.
The agency denied Petitioners’ CAT claim after concluding that
Petitioners had not demonstrated that they would be tortured with the consent or
acquiescence of a government official if they returned to El Salvador. See 8
C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(7). Lead Petitioner argues that the
government is unable to protect her, but the BIA’s determination that the police
did not acquiesce in her torture is supported by substantial evidence. See
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014). Although Lead
Petitioner reported the gang members’ threats to the police, she could not
identify the gang members, and the police told her that they could not take a
report without more evidence because there was “not enough proof.” See
Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 363 (“CAT relief is unavailable, despite a
likelihood of torture, without evidence that the police are unwilling or unable to

-- 3 of 4 --

4 21-595
oppose the crime, not just that they are unable to solve it, as when the torturers
cannot be identified.” (emphasis added)).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --