Iris Yesenia Moreira-De Sandoval; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IRIS YESENIA MOREIRA-DE
SANDOVAL; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-73135
Agency Nos. A206-762-467
A206-762-468
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Iris Yesenia Moreira-De Sandoval and her minor son, natives and citizens of
El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
* 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
JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-73135
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
We do not disturb the determination that petitioners failed to establish they
suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Villegas Sanchez v.
Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021) (threats “were not so overwhelming
so as to necessarily constitute persecution” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Persecution ...
is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society
regards as offensive.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 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 supports the
conclusion that petitioners failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future
persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution
“too speculative”).
We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to nexus to a protected ground
and the cognizability of their particular social group because the BIA did not deny
relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-73135
Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds
relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they failed to
satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez, 990 F.3d at
1183. Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they 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).
To the extent petitioners assert new claims related to perceived wealth, we
lack jurisdiction to consider these issues. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented
below).
We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in their opening brief
that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-
64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --