Reyes v. Garland
| Decision Date | 16 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-363 |
| Parties | KARLA SOLORIO REYES; RHIANNA ZARAGOZA; MARIA ZARAGOZA, Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted May 12, 2023 [**] San Francisco, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A216-272-537, A216-272-538, A216-272-539
Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT [***] District Judge.
Karla Solorio Reyes and her two minor daughters, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") dismissal of their appeal from an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture ("CAT").[1] Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.
Petitioners entered the United States in January 2018 without valid entry documents. The Department of Homeland Security charged them with removability and served them with individual notices to appear ("NTA").[2]Petitioners conceded removability, but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. Before the IJ, Solorio Reyes testified that she feared two of her uncles. One uncle, Pedro, had a substance abuse disorder and repeatedly threatened to kill her family "when [Solorio Reyes] was a girl." But most of her testimony focused on a second uncle, Homero, who is the head of a local gang that repeatedly tried to recruit her husband, Erik. After Erik moved to the United States, Homero, who had learned Erik had left, visited Solorio Reyes at her home with two other armed men. When she refused to tell them where Erik had gone, Homero told her: "Well, we'll see how things go for you guys." Solorio Reyes took this statement to be a death threat considering the gang's history of killing the families of prospective recruits that declined to join the organization. She testified that her family was not threatened again or harmed after that incident.[3] She also testified that her father and brother continue to live in her home state unharmed. But she fears retribution by both uncles if she returns to Mexico.
The IJ found Solorio Reyes credible but denied all relief, and the BIA dismissed Petitioners' appeal. We review the agency's legal conclusions de novo and its factual determinations for substantial evidence. Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022).
The agency correctly determined that Petitioners' past harm did not rise to the level of persecution.[4] Persecution "is an extreme concept" that "'does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.'" Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir. 1995)). Threats, without more, generally do not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) . There is no evidence that the threats Petitioners received were "accompanied by evidence of violent confrontations, near-confrontations [or] vandalism." Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 634 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1119 (9th Cir. 2004)).[5] Under these circumstances, we conclude that the threats from Pedro and Homero do not constitute past persecution. Moreover, Petitioners do not contest the BIA's determination that they have not established a well-founded fear of future persecution.[6] Accordingly, we deny the petition with respect to the asylum claim.
For the same reasons, we deny the petition to the extent it challenges the agency's withholding determination. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii); see also Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 719 (9th Cir. 2021) . Further, we dismiss the petition to the extent it challenges the agency's denial of CAT relief because Petitioners did not exhaust that argument below. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1296 &n.2 (9th Cir. 2019).
PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
---------
[*] 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 Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
[1] Solorio Reyes included her daughters as derivative applicants on her application for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A). We refer to them collectively as "Petitioners."
[2] Petitioners contested the validity of their NTAs before the BIA, but they do not raise that issue on appeal.
[3] For the first time in their opening brief, Petitioners allege that they experienced "physical abuse" and that "gang members assaulted [Solorio Reyes], and threatened her with bodily harm." Because these allegations were not presented to the agency, we cannot consider them here. See Tomczyk v Garland, 25...
To continue reading
Request your trial