Petitioners Maricela Elizabeth Rodriguez Dominguez and her two minor children, natives of El Salvador, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They alleged that gang members extorted money from their partner because he had a job and was perceived to have wealth. After the partner fled, the gang demanded continued payments from Rodriguez Dominguez and subsequently targeted her. The immigration judge denied their applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision. The petitioners argued that the gang's targeting of them was on account of their membership in a particular social group: the immediate family members of their partner. The government, represented by Attorney General Pamela Bondi, opposed the petition for review.
The panel reviewed the Board's factual findings for substantial evidence, a highly deferential standard where findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The court addressed two primary issues. First, regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court analyzed whether the petitioners established a nexus between the harm and a protected ground. The record showed the gang members were motivated by the partner's employment and perceived wealth. The court cited Zetino v. Holder and Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, explaining that an alien's desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence bears no nexus to a protected ground. The court found no evidence that the gang harbored animus toward the family; rather, they had only economic motivations. Consequently, the petitioners failed to show that a protected ground was either a reason or one central reason for the harm. Second, regarding CAT relief, the court noted that the petitioners must prove it is more likely than not that they would be tortured if removed. The record indicated that the petitioners' family members, including the partner's father, continue to reside in El Salvador and have not been harmed or threatened by the gang. The court concluded that generalized evidence of violence and crime is insufficient to establish a likelihood of future torture, and the record did not compel a finding of a particularized and non-speculative risk.
The petition for review is denied, meaning the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision denying all requested relief stands. The motion to stay removal is also denied. This decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's precedent that economic motivations driving gang violence do not satisfy the nexus requirement for asylum claims based on family membership. It also highlights that the continued safety of family members remaining in the country of origin can be a significant factor in denying CAT claims due to a lack of particularized risk.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download