Carol Jeannette Castro- Menjivar v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAROL JEANNETTE CASTRO-
MENJIVAR; VALERY MENJIVAR-
CASTRO; XAVIER ALEXANDER
MENJIVAR-COREAS,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-303
Agency Nos.
A209-221-935
A209-221-927
A209-221-929
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 27, 2024**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACH, NGUYEN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.***
Carol Jeannette Castro-Menjivar, Xavier Alexander Menjivar-Coreas, and
* 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).
*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 29 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-303
Valery Menjivar-Castro, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review factual findings for substantive evidence and legal conclusions de novo.
Cornejo-Villagrana v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 479, 482 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny the
petition.
1. Castro-Menjivar argues the BIA erred in finding that she had not
established that the harm she experienced or fears in El Salvador would be
motivated by membership in her proposed social group of “military members or
family of military members.” But Castro-Menjivar failed to present sufficient
evidence to establish a nexus between this claimed membership and the harm she
experienced, or feared she would experience if removed to El Salvador. While
Castro-Menjivar presented evidence of her and her husband being threatened,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that it was not motivated by her
or her husband’s membership in the military but by a desire to extort ransom
money. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 739 (9th Cir. 2009).
2. Castro-Menjivar argues that the BIA erred in denying her CAT claim.
To qualify for relief under CAT, Castro-Menjivar would need to establish that “it
is more likely than not that … she would be tortured if removed” to El Salvador.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-303
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination
that Castro-Menjivar failed to show “an individualized risk of torture.” See
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --