DARLING MARTINEZ, AKA Darling Otoniel Martinez Martinez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARLING MARTINEZ, AKA Darling
Otoniel Martinez Martinez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72456
Agency No. A094-314-745
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 27, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Darling Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of an
immigration judge denying his application for withholding of removal and for
* 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
FEB 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-72456
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the crimes
Martinez suffered in El Salvador were not on account of a protected ground. See
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that to
qualify for withholding of removal, a person must show that their life or freedom
will be threatened because of their “race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42))).
The record does not compel the conclusion that the extortion, shooting at his
family’s home, and death threat by gang members were motivated by any intent to
harm Martinez specifically or by anything other than general criminality. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be
free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang
members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). The BIA therefore did not err in
denying Martinez’s application for withholding of removal. See id.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Martinez did
not demonstrate that he is more likely than not to suffer torture inflicted by, at the
instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of Salvadoran officials, if
returned to El Salvador. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193-95 (9th Cir.
2003) (explaining the government acquiescence requirement for CAT relief). The

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-72456
BIA thus did not err in denying Martinez’s request for relief under CAT.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --