Marlene Lopez-Mendez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing her appeal from an Immigration Judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Her claims were based on threats made by her niece's boyfriend, Arnoldo, and general gang violence in El Salvador. The Immigration Judge found that while threats were made, the petitioner could avoid harm by relocating to the town where her daughters reside, and that her fear of general crime was insufficient to meet the legal burden for relief.
The Ninth Circuit applied the substantial evidence standard to the BIA's factual findings, meaning the court would only reverse if any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude differently based on the record. First, regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the court noted that while Arnoldo threatened the petitioner's family, her partner still lives in the neighborhood and her daughters live an hour away, with no record suggesting they have had issues with Arnoldo or the Mara 18 gang since the petitioner left. The court rejected the argument that the agency ignored broader gang threats, noting the IJ specifically found that fear of general crime separate from Arnoldo was insufficient. Second, the court addressed the past persecution claim. While death threats can constitute persecution, they must be specific, menacing, and accompanied by evidence of violent confrontations. The court found that Arnoldo's unfulfilled threats did not rise to the level of actual persecution because the petitioner and her family members were not physically harmed. Finally, the court affirmed the finding on future persecution, emphasizing that the BIA's conclusion that the petitioner could safely relocate was dispositive of her asylum and withholding of removal claims.
The petitioner's petition for review is denied, and her motion to stay removal is dismissed as moot. The temporary stay of removal will dissolve upon the issuance of the mandate. The decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's willingness to uphold agency findings that a petitioner can safely relocate within their home country to avoid specific threats, even in the context of high gang violence, provided the agency has addressed the specific circumstances of the petitioner.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download