Rosa Erminia Alvarado- Martinez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA ERMINIA ALVARADO-
MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1142
Agency No.
A208-193-750
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Erminia Alvarado-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
* 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
MAY 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-1142
§ 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Alvarado-
Martinez did not establish that the government of El Salvador was or is unable
or unwilling to control the agents of any past persecution or feared future
persecution. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.
2005) (record did not compel a finding that the government was unwilling or
unable to control the feared harm). Thus, Alvarado-Martinez’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
We do not address Alvarado-Martinez’s contentions regarding the
cognizability of her proposed particular social groups because the BIA did not
deny relief on that ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820,
829 (9th 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)).
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because
Alvarado-Martinez 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 Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --