MARIA NOE GUILLEN-AMAYA, AKA Maria Nore Guillen-Amaya; SANDY NAHOMY GUILLEN-RIVAS v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA NOE GUILLEN-AMAYA, AKA
Maria Nore Guillen-Amaya; SANDY
NAHOMY GUILLEN-RIVAS,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71343
19-70098
19-70098
Agency Nos. A208-997-453
A208-997-452
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2022**
San Jose, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Maria Guillen-Amaya and her daughter, Sandy Guillen-Rivas,
are citizens and natives of El Salvador. They petition for review of a decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from a decision
* 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
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). They also petition for review of
the BIA’s denial of their motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review agency findings for substantial evidence, and denials of
motions to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789
(9th Cir. 2014) (substantial evidence standard); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d
968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard). We deny the petition.
1. The BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners did not demonstrate past
persecution or an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution is supported by
substantial evidence. Guillen-Amaya did not introduce evidence of any specific,
nonspeculative risk of persecution to her or her daughter.1 See, e.g., Hakeem v.
INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he applicant must show more than the
existence of a generalized or random possibility of persecution in his native
country.”), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Ramadan v.
Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007). The murder of her cousin and the
general country conditions evidence about crime and violence in El Salvador do
not suffice to compel the conclusion that Petitioners face a sufficient risk of
1 The BIA did not err in considering Guillen-Amaya’s petition together with
her daughter’s because her daughter did not set out separate facts in her asylum
application. Regardless, even considering any additional risk to her daughter due
to her young age, the record does not compel the conclusion that she has a well-
founded fear of persecution.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
persecution. Because Petitioners’ claim for asylum and withholding fail on this
first element, the IJ did not err in declining to analyze other elements of those
claims. The BIA also did not err in declining to consider the political opinion
argument that was not brought before the IJ.
2. With regard to Petitioners’ claim for relief under CAT, Petitioners
must establish that it is more likely than not that they would be tortured if returned
to El Salvador. Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).
Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime is not sufficient to meet
this standard. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
3. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration. Petitioners’ argument in that motion—that their notice to
appear’s omission of the time and place of hearing deprived the IJ of jurisdiction—
is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir.
2022) (en banc).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --