Walter Joaquin Del Cid v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER JOAQUIN DEL CID,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71581
Agency No. A094-321-060
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,***
District Judge.
Walter Joaquin Del Cid (“Del Cid”) petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial
* 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).
*** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 5 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny
the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Del Cid
failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. Del Cid “may
establish eligibility for withholding of removal (A) by establishing a presumption
of fear of future persecution based on past persecution, or (B) through an
independent showing of clear probability of future persecution.” Tamang v.
Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b).
The BIA properly concluded that Del Cid failed to demonstrate that the
harm he had experienced—alleged attacks by gangs—bore a nexus to his
membership in a protected group. Even assuming that Del Cid’s prior civil service
qualifies him for membership in a “particular social group” for purposes of
withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
that Del Cid did not demonstrate the prior attacks occurred on account of his two
years working in civil defense. Del Cid testified that he believes he was attacked
due to his past military service, but there is no evidence that the persecutors were
so motivated. Therefore, the record does not “compel[] a contrary conclusion” to
the agency’s determination that Del Cid failed to demonstrate a nexus between his
past persecution and military membership. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d

-- 2 of 4 --

3
1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Del Cid
did not establish that it is “more probable than not that he would be persecuted
upon return to” El Salvador. Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.
2003). While Del Cid presents evidence that El Salvador has a widespread
problem with gang violence, a generalized fear of violence and crime in a
noncitizen’s country of origin is generally “insufficient” to meet the “more likely
than not standard.” Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
The record shows no evidence that Del Cid has been recently threatened or that he
would be harmed because he served in military recruitment nearly three decades
ago.
Finally, the BIA did not err in holding that Del Cid did not establish a clear
probability of future persecution based on family ties. General harm to family
members “do[es] not serve to establish a risk of future persecution to the applicant
himself, absent a pattern of persecution tied to the applicant personally.” Matter of
A-K, 24 I. & N. Dec. 275, 278 (BIA 2007) (citing Arriaga-Barrientos v. U.S.I.N.S.,
937 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1991). While Del Cid’s mother was robbed on two
occasions, the record indicates those robberies were motivated by financial gain,
rather than a specific threat to Del Cid. Substantial evidence therefore supports the
agency’s finding that Del Cid did not establish a likelihood of future persecution

-- 3 of 4 --

4
based on family ties.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Del Cid did not
establish eligibility for CAT protection. In order to qualify for CAT protection, a
noncitizen must show “that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon
removal, and that the torture will be inflicted at the instigation of, or with the
consent or acquiescence of, the government.” Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940,
948 (9th Cir. 2007). “Torture” is “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment
and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment that do not amount to torture.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). The three
incidents of gang violence suffered by Del Cid do not rise to the level of torture.
Even if they did, El Cid presents no evidence that the government of El Salvador
acquiesced to those past attacks. Del Cid therefore did not carry his burden to
demonstrate eligibility for CAT protection.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --