Rosalia Salvadora Villalobos De Constanza; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSALIA SALVADORA VILLALOBOS
DE CONSTANZA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72908
Agency Nos. A208-783-912
A208-783-913
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Rosalia Salvadora Villalobos De Constanza and her minor daughter, natives
and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from immigration judge’s decision
denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 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).
FILED
JUL 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-72908
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish that the Salvadoran government was or would be unable or
unwilling to control the people they fear. See Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938,
941-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (record did not compel the conclusion that the government
was unable or unwilling to control the individuals petitioner feared); see also
Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (“To reverse the BIA, we
must determine that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but
compels it . . .”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, petitioners’
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Villalobos De Constanza failed to show it is more likely than not she will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that
petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-72908
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --