Evelyn Castro Rivera and her minor son, citizens of El Salvador, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. They alleged mistreatment stemming from threats by gangs and a former partner. An Immigration Judge denied their applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. The petitioners argued that the agency failed to consider relevant evidence and that the harm they faced was linked to their family membership or status as Salvadoran women. The case reached the Ninth Circuit on a petition for review of the BIA's final order.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence, a standard that requires administrative findings to be conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The court first rejected the petitioners' argument that the Immigration Judge failed to consider relevant evidence, noting that the IJ explicitly stated she considered all evidence and found the petitioners' testimony credible. The court emphasized that an IJ is not required to write an exegesis on every contention or provide a separate statement of facts. The core legal issue was the nexus requirement. To qualify for asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant must show a connection between the harm and a protected ground, such as membership in a particular social group. The court found substantial evidence supporting the agency's conclusion that the gang threats were motivated by general criminality rather than the petitioners' family relationships or political opinion. Citing Zetino v. Holder, the court noted that a desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence bears no nexus to a protected ground. Similarly, the court upheld the agency's finding that threats from a former partner were motivated by personal issues, not the petitioners' status as Salvadoran women. Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the court affirmed the denial because the petitioners failed to show it was more likely than not that they would be tortured with government acquiescence. The agency reasonably concluded that past harms did not rise to the level of torture and that the prosecution of those involved in the brother's murder refuted claims of government acquiescence. The court further held that general ineffectiveness of the government to investigate crime does not suffice to show acquiescence, and generalized country conditions evidence did not compel a conclusion of particularized, ongoing risk of future torture.
The petitioners' applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture remain denied. The decision reinforces the strict application of the nexus requirement in gang-related cases, clarifying that general criminality does not qualify as a protected ground. It also reaffirms that generalized country conditions and government ineffectiveness are insufficient to prove acquiescence for Torture Convention claims. The petitioners are now subject to removal from the United States.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download