Alma Stefany Castillo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALMA STEFANY CASTILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70130
Agency No. A205-078-318
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2022**
San Jose, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Alma Stefany Castillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, timely
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
FILED
NOV 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
The BIA adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision that had
found Petitioner credible but concluded that she had not suffered harm amounting
to past persecution in El Salvador and, further, that she had not shown that any past
harm or threats of future harm were on account of a protected ground. Those
findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399
F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005) (determining that the threats the petitioner
received did not rise to the level of persecution where the petitioner suffered no
physical harm and received vague, anonymous threats). At most the evidence
established Petitioner’s fear of gang violence, which we have held does not relate
to or constitute a protected ground. See Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887
(9th Cir. 2019); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of protection under CAT.
Although we recognize the level of violence that exists in El Salvador, the record
does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner would be targeted for torture if
returned to El Salvador. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 891 (9th
Cir. 2021).
Petitioner’s Motion to Remand, Docket No. 46, is denied.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --