Telma Iris Santos-Fernandez; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TELMA IRIS SANTOS-FERNANDEZ; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-240
Agency Nos.
A209-420-289
A209-420-288
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Telma Iris Santos-Fernandez and her minor son, 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, and denying Santos-Fernandez’s
applications for withholding of removal and protection 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 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-240
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo
v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Because petitioners do not raise any challenge to the agency’s dispositive
determination that they failed to establish that the government of El Salvador
was unable or unwilling to control the agents of the harm they experienced or
fear, we do not reach the issue. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to their particular social
group because the BIA did not deny relief on that ground. See Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the
decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because Santos-Fernandez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she
failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez
v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Santos-Fernandez failed to show it is more likely than not she will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --