Bella Campos Cruz v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 19 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BELLA MARLENY CAMPOS CRUZ; No. 18-72184
RONALD ALEXANDER BERNAL
CAMPOS, Agency Nos. A208-910-973
A208-910-974
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: MURGUIA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW,*** District
Judge.
*
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 Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
Bella Campos Cruz petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)
order finding her ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a), and we deny the petition.1
We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings underlying a
determination that an alien has not established eligibility for asylum, withholding
of removal, or CAT relief. Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020).
To prevail under the substantial evidence standard, the petitioner “must show that
the evidence not only supports, but compels the conclusion that these findings and
decisions are erroneous.” Cordon-Garcia v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir.
2000). Where, as here, the BIA conducted its own review of the evidence, we
review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and limit our review to the BIA’s
decision “except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Id.The BIA determined that Campos Cruz failed to establish a nexus between
her proposed social group and future feared harm. See Al-Harbi v. I.N.S., 242 F.3d
882, 888–89 (9th Cir. 2001). Campos Cruz testified that her husband’s abuse
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those facts
necessary to resolve the issues on appeal.
2
stemmed from his drinking problem, and the record does not compel a conclusion
that his abuse was caused by any animus towards women in El Salvador in general,
or women who had children and were abused by the fathers of their children. The
failure to show nexus to a protected ground defeats her claims for asylum and
withholding. See id.The BIA did not err by concluding that Campos Cruz failed to demonstrate
the El Salvadoran police would acquiesce to her torture by the father of her child.
Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 509–10 (9th Cir. 2013). Campos Cruz pointed
to no evidence in the record establishing that the police or government were aware
of, or turned a blind eye to, the violence against her. Indeed, her sister encouraged
her to report the abuse, but she did not do so because she decided the police would
“just investigate and do nothing.” General ineffectiveness is not the same as
acquiescence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). The
country conditions reports that Campos Cruz cites are outside of the record, and the
country conditions report in the record does not compel the conclusion that the El
Salvadoran government would acquiesce to her torture.
PETITION DENIED.
3