Daysi Leticia Dominguez De Lucano; Daniel Antonio Lucano Dominguez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAYSI LETICIA DOMINGUEZ DE
LUCANO; DANIEL ANTONIO
LUCANO DOMINGUEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72644
Agency Nos. A200-571-823
A200-571-824
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
FILED
OCT 02 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

-- 1 of 3 --

Daysi Leticia Dominguez de Lucano,1 a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for substantial evidence, see Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th
Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of
removal because petitioner failed to show she was persecuted on account of a
protected ground. First, although petitioner was threatened with extortion and
violence by gangs, it was not on account of her membership in a particular social
group. Generalized violence cannot support an asylum claim on the basis of a
protected ground, see Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016, and the BIA properly rejected the
possible social groups of “wealthy Salvadorans” or “returnees” from the United
States to El Salvador. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1138-40 (9th Cir. 2016)
(rejecting “deportees from the United States to El Salvador” as a particular social
group); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting
1 Petitioner’s son, Daniel Antonio Lucano Dominguez, is listed as a
derivative beneficiary on her asylum application.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

perceived wealth as a social group). Second, to the extent that petitioner alleges she
was persecuted by her husband on account of her status as a married woman unable
to leave her relationship, substantial evidence supported the BIA’s decision to
dismiss, as petitioner has been separated from her husband since 2008—at least
three years before she came to the United States seeking asylum.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner failed
to demonstrate a clear probability she will be tortured by the government or with
the government’s acquiescence if returned to El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, petitioner’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims
fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --