United States v. 2020-06-26 | 17-71990 | HILDA TRIGUEROS-AGUERO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HILDA PATRICIA TRIGUEROS-
AGUERO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71990
Agency No. A205-306-110
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 7, 2020
**
Seattle, Washington
Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and CHHABRIA,
***
District Judge.

FILED
JUN 26 2020
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 concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
* * *
The Honorable Vince Chhabria, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Hilda Trigueros-Aguero petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.
In removal proceedings, Trigueros-Aguero contended that she had been
subject to past persecution in her native El Salvador because she was raped twice
as a child and because she was accosted by gang members who threatened to harm
her if her mother—a local business owner—did not make monthly payments to the
gang. She also testified that she feared gangs would target her because her brother
was formerly a police officer in El Salvador and had been shot by gang members
there before moving to the United States. Finally, she testified that her domestic
partner, who currently lives with her in the United States, had subjected her to
domestic violence here and could do so again with impunity in El Salvador.
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that Trigueros-Aguero’s testimony was
not credible based on inconsistencies between her testimony and her written
application materials. In the alternative, the IJ found that Trigueros-Aguero had
not established a nexus between the mistreatment and a protected ground, and had
not established a likelihood of torture. The BIA dismissed her appeal on
substantially the same grounds.
2

We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings
for substantial evidence. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010).
That standard requires us to uphold the agency’s decision if it is supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record. Cordon-Garcia v.
INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2000).
We agree with the BIA that, even crediting Trigueros-Aguero’s testimony,
she did not establish that her past mistreatment was on account of a protected
ground, that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution, or that there was a
likelihood of torture. Even crediting her testimony, there is no connection between
the rapes and a protected ground. Similarly, the extortion based on her mother’s
business is not connected to a protected ground. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d
1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding
that any likelihood of future persecution based on her brother’s affiliation with the
police or her relationship with her domestic partner was speculative, where she did
not suffer any past persecution in El Salvador on those grounds, and both her
brother and domestic partner now reside in the United States. Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s finding that Trigueros-Aguero did not establish a
likelihood of torture in El Salvador.
PETITION DENIED.
3