Teresa De Jesus Chavez-Rivas; J.a.m.c. v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERESA DE JESUS CHAVEZ-RIVAS;
J.A.M.C.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1228
Agency Nos.
A215-773-052
A215-773-054
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2023**
San Jose, California
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GRABER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit
Judges.
Petitioners Teresa de Jesus Chavez-Rivas and her minor son, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the denial by the Board of
* 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 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1228
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of their applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence.1
Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the determination by the immigration judge
(“IJ”) and BIA that Petitioners failed to establish either a well-founded fear of
future persecution or that they are more likely than not to be tortured if returned to
El Salvador. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028–29 (9th Cir.
2019) (stating standards). Chavez-Rivas stated that she and her son have never
been contacted, threatened, or physically harmed by gang members. Although
harm to family members can be relevant, here there is no evidence that the beating
of her partner was part of “a pattern of persecution closely tied” to Petitioners.
Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009)). Although Chavez-Rivas predicted
that gang members will harm Petitioners because of their family association with
her partner, the BIA reasonably concluded that these predictions were speculative.
See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Speculation on
what could occur is not enough to establish a reasonable fear [of persecution].”);
1 We do not consider the materials Chavez-Rivas references that are not part
of the administrative record. See, e.g., Barrientos v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 1064, 1067
n.1 (9th Cir. 2016).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1228
Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (“The record must show that it
is more likely than not that the petitioner will face a particularized and non-
speculative risk of torture.”). Petitioners argue that the IJ and BIA should have
considered the risk of harm by corrupt police and by those in El Salvador who
target women and deportees from the United States, but Chavez-Rivas does not
explain how her fear of mistreatment from those sources is any less speculative.
The BIA appropriately rejected Petitioners’ political opinion claim on the
ground that it had not been raised before the IJ. Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d
1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding the BIA “does not per se err when it concludes
that arguments raised for the first time on appeal do not have to be entertained”).
The BIA also did not err in rejecting the argument that the IJ failed to meaningfully
address the son’s claim; Petitioners made no arguments particular to him before the
IJ and nothing in the record indicated that he and Chavez-Rivas were differently
situated.
Petition DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --