Yessenia Serrano-Otero v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YESSENIA SERRANO-OTERO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72466
Agency No. A206-798-724
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Yessenia Serrano-Otero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
DEC 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72466
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial
evidence. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny
the petition for review.
We do not disturb the determination that Serrano-Otero failed to establish
she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s past experiences, even
considered cumulatively, did not compel a finding of past persecution); see also
Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not
resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence review applies, where result
would be the same under either standard). Substantial evidence also supports the
conclusion that Serrano-Otero failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of
future persecution in El Salvador. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Serrano-
Otero’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Serrano-Otero failed to establish eligibility for asylum,
she failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT protection because
Serrano-Otero failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72466
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --