Ana Elizabeth Henriquez- Bernal; Estela Elizabeth Santos-Aguilera v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA ELIZABETH HENRIQUEZ-
BERNAL; ESTELA ELIZABETH
SANTOS-AGUILERA,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72323
Agency Nos. A095-734-320
A095-734-321
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Ana Elizabeth Henriquez-Bernal and Estela Elizabeth Santos-Aguilera,
natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
* 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
APR 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72323
decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harm petitioners
suffered in El Salvador did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko
v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did not compel the finding
that petitioner experienced past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports
the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to establish an objectively reasonable
fear of future persecution in El Salvador. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816
(9th Cir. 2001) (“[a]n applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened,
even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the
country without incident”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claims fail.
In this case, because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they
failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d
at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claim

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72323
because they failed to establish that it is more likely than not they will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA violated their due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a
general rule courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to
the results they reach.”) (citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --