Marcio Silva-Galdino v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 4 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCIO SILVA-GALDINO; TAYNARA No. 14-74044
LOPES-MARTINS RIBEIRO,
Agency Nos. A088-450-333
Petitioners, A088-350-930
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 02, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Marcio Silva-Galdino,1 a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
*
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).
1
Marcio Silva-Galdino is the lead petitioner. His step-daughter, Taynara
Lopes-Martins Ribeiro, is a derivative claimant on Silva-Galdino’s application.
No independent evidence was presented on her behalf, and her claims are entirely
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Silva-Galdino
failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.
See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire
to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by
gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237
F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on
account of a protected ground). Accordingly, Silva-Galdino’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Silva-Galdino failed to show he would more likely than not be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Brazil.2 See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
dependent on Silva-Galdino’s. Thus, our holdings on Silva-Galdino’s application
apply equally to both petitioners.
2
The record does not support Silva-Galdino’s argument on appeal that the
agency applied an “erroneous legal standard” to the CAT claim by using the phrase
“clear probability of future torture.” Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721-22 (9th
Cir. 2004) (“We cannot say on this record that the evidence compels us to find that
[the alien] meets the clear probability standard.”)
2 14-74044