Glenda Marinelis Portillo- Lopez; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLENDA MARINELIS PORTILLO-
LOPEZ; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70673
Agency Nos. A202-032-816
A202-032-817
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Glenda Marinelis Portillo-Lopez and her minor son, natives and citizens of
El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
* 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
JUL 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70673
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish they suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme
concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel
the conclusion that threats rose to the level of persecution). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in El Salvador. See Nagoulko,
333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
In this case, because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
We do not reach petitioners’ contentions regarding the cognizability of their
proposed particular social group because the agency did not deny relief on that

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70673
ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)
(review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will 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 issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --