Eva Duran-Conrado v. William Barr ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 10 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EVA MARIA DURAN-CONRADO, No. 17-73445
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-163-456
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 5, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,***
District Judge.
Eva Maria Duran-Conrado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the
*
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).
***
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying her claims for asylum, withholding
of removal, and CAT relief.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny
the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Duran-Conrado
failed to establish that she was or would be persecuted by gang members because
she was a “woman in El Salvador.”2 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that gang members did not just target women, but rather targeted all
business owners who the gang perceived had money, and persecuted those who
failed to pay the gang’s extortion money. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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.”). Because Duran-Conrado points to no evidence in the record
that would compel a contrary conclusion, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
481 n.1 (1992), Duran-Conrado’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Duran-Conrado
is not eligible for CAT relief. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193, 1195
1
Duran-Conrado’s daughter is a derivative applicant.
2
The BIA assumed that Duran-Conrado’s proposed social group—“women
of El Salvador”—was cognizable; Duran-Conrado did not allege any other
protected ground as a basis for asylum.
2
(9th Cir. 2003). On this record, she has not shown a clear probability of torture if
removed to El Salvador by either government officials or private actors with
government acquiescence. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th
Cir. 2016) (“[A] general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate
and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3