Erika M. Medrano Segovia; Alan O. Marquez Medrano v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIKA M. MEDRANO SEGOVIA; ALAN
O. MARQUEZ MEDRANO,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-186
Agency Nos.
A216-566-076
A216-566-077
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 27, 2023**
Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Erika M. Medrano Segovia and her minor son (“Petitioners”) seek review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision, affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, statutory withholding 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
AUG 1 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. We review an agency’s
factual determinations for substantial evidence. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014,
1018 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We will affirm the BIA’s decision if it is ‘supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.’”) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)). We deny the
petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners
did not establish that the government of El Salvador was or is unable or unwilling to
control the agents of any past persecution or feared future persecution. See Castro-
Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel a
finding that the government was unwilling or unable to control the feared harm).
Salvadoran police are investigating the murder of Segovia’s sister-in-law, and
arrested her nephews for gang-related criminal activity. The record reflects other
meaningful investigative efforts by law enforcement against gang violence. And
Segovia’s reference to country condition reports does not compel a contrary
conclusion. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3) (“In cases in which the applicant has not
established past persecution, the applicant shall bear the burden that it would not be
reasonable for him or her to relocate, unless the persecution is by a government or
government-sponsored.”); Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 649 (9th Cir. 2021). We

-- 2 of 4 --

3
thus deny the petition’s challenges to the denial of asylum and withholding of
removal.
2. To establish eligibility for CAT protection, “an applicant bears the
burden of establishing that she will more likely than not be tortured with the consent
or acquiescence of a public official if removed to her native country.” Xochihua-
Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). The BIA determined that
Segovia and her minor son did not show that a public official would likely acquiesce
to torturous harm by gang members. As stated above, the police are investigating
the murder of Segovia’s sister-in-law, and the cooperation of Segovia’s nephews as
informants for the police reflects meaningful efforts by law enforcement against
gang violence. Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT
protection.
3. Petitioners argue that they were denied a full and fair hearing because
the IJ unreasonably limited the weight given to Segovia’s testimony and denied her
day-of request for a continuance. To state a due process claim, the petitioner must
show prejudice, meaning “the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by
the alleged violation.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000).
Petitioners have not shown how the evidence they sought to obtain would affect the
dispositive issues of the government being unable or unwilling to control gang
members, the unreasonableness of relocation, or the government’s acquiescence to

-- 3 of 4 --

4
torture. And Petitioners make no compelling argument that the immigration judge’s
weighing of Segovia’s testimony violated their rights.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --