Aracely Escalante Ayala; Saul Antonio Bonilla Escalante; Bryan Ernesto Bonilla Escalante v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARACELY ESCALANTE AYALA; SAUL
ANTONIO BONILLA ESCALANTE;
BRYAN ERNESTO BONILLA
ESCALANTE,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73510
Agency Nos. A208-927-302
A208-927-303
A208-927-304
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.
Aracely Escalante Ayala and her two children, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
* 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 18-73510
application for asylum, and denying Escalante Ayala’s applications for
withholding of removal and protection 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, including the agency’s determination that
the serious nonpolitical crime bar applies. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1241 (9th Cir. 2020); Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that there were
serious reasons to believe Escalante Ayala committed a serious nonpolitical crime.
See Go, 640 F.3d at 1052-53 (drug trafficking is presumptively a serious
nonpolitical crime, and hearing testimony was sufficient to establish serious
reasons for believing commission of the offense). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim,
and Escalante Ayala’s withholding of removal claim, fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Escalante Ayala 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 (9th Cir. 2014) (“torture must be
‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official capacity’”) (internal citation omitted).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-73510
We reject as unsupported by the record Escalante Ayala’s contention that the
agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in the analysis of her claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --