Saul Alfredo Serrano Arias; Lorena Guadalupe Jimenez-De Serrano v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAUL ALFREDO SERRANO ARIAS;
LORENA GUADALUPE JIMENEZ-DE
SERRANO,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72107
Agency Nos. A206-445-045
A206-489-973
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Saul Alfredo Serrano Arias and Lorena Guadalupe Jimenez-De Serrano,
natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from immigration judge’s decision denying
* 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 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72107
their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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.
Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
petitioners experienced in El Salvador did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not
compel finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took
no violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
petitioners failed to establish the harm they fear would be on account of a protected
ground, including a political opinion. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856
(9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting political opinion claim where petitioner did not present
sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition to the gang’s ideals or that
the gang imputed a particular political belief to the petitioner), abrogated in part
on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013); see
also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72107
Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief 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).
Petitioners’ request for oral argument, raised in their opening brief, is
denied.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --