Digna Marina Sorto-Cruz and her daughter, Erika Xiomara Ramirez-Sorto, natives of El Salvador, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Sorto-Cruz alleged that gang members attempted to extort her and physically attacked her. An Immigration Judge denied her claims, finding that the Salvadoran government was able to control the gang members because police arrested and prosecuted the attacker who physically harmed her. The IJ also noted that while police did not assist with threatening phone calls, Sorto-Cruz could not identify the callers. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the denial, concluding that Sorto-Cruz waived any challenge to the government's ability to control the gang because she did not specifically argue against the IJ's findings in her brief, offering only a conclusory assertion about gang impunity. Sorto-Cruz then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review.
The Ninth Circuit applied the substantial evidence standard to the agency's factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions. The court first addressed the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a petitioner must meaningfully challenge the IJ's decision in their brief to the BIA; a conclusory assertion that gangs operate with impunity does not suffice to challenge specific findings about police action in the petitioner's case. The court found that Sorto-Cruz's failure to engage with the IJ's specific reasoning regarding the arrest and prosecution of her attacker amounted to a forfeiture of that issue. Consequently, the court upheld the BIA's denial of asylum and withholding of removal on the basis that the petitioner failed to exhaust this dispositive claim. Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the court found substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that Sorto-Cruz did not meet the 'more likely than not' standard for future torture. The IJ reasonably determined that the harm was linked to a specific local gang member and that Sorto-Cruz failed to show she could not relocate to another part of El Salvador to avoid that harm. The court cited precedent holding that the ability to relocate is a sufficient ground to deny Torture Convention relief.
The petition is denied, and the agency's order denying relief remains in effect. The decision reinforces the strict requirement that asylum seekers must specifically rebut the Immigration Judge's factual findings regarding government control and relocation options in their appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals. It also confirms that failure to exhaust administrative remedies on the issue of government control is a fatal defect that prevents judicial review of that specific claim.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download