Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Moris A. Gonzalez Centeno, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Gonzalez Centeno claimed he was subjected to a weekly $5 protection fee, extortion attempts, forced transportation of MS-13 gang members with weapons and drugs, and threats against his daughter. He argued these incidents constituted past persecution and that he faced future persecution on account of his political opinion due to his refusal to pay extortion money. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s findings and added its own reasoning, concluding that the incidents did not rise to the level of persecution, that Gonzalez Centeno failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground, and that he did not meet the standard for CAT protection.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review. Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court held that the record did not compel a finding of past persecution, citing precedent that threats without physical harm do not constitute persecution.
The court further held that Gonzalez Centeno failed to establish a nexus between his political opinion and any potential future persecution, noting he testified he was unsure why MS-13 targeted him and identified no evidence compelling the conclusion that his political opinion was a central reason for persecution. Regarding CAT protection, the court held that the evidence—including forced transportation of gang members, threats, extortion, and a coworker’s killing—did not compel the conclusion that he is more likely than not to suffer torture in El Salvador. The court also found that Gonzalez Centeno failed to exhaust his due process claim before the BIA and forfeited challenges to the particularity and social distinction of his proposed particular social group.
Key Takeaways
- Payment of protection fees, extortion, forced transportation of gang members, and threats against family members—without physical harm—do not compel a finding of past persecution under Ninth Circuit precedent.
- A petitioner’s subjective uncertainty about why a gang targeted him undermines the ability to establish a nexus between a protected ground (political opinion) and feared persecution.
- CAT relief requires evidence compelling the conclusion that the petitioner is more likely than not to suffer torture; generalized violence and threats are insufficient.
- Due process claims involving procedural errors correctable by the BIA must be exhausted administratively before judicial review.
- Failure to meaningfully challenge the BIA’s determination that a proposed particular social group lacks particularity or social distinction results in forfeiture of that claim.
Why It Matters
This memorandum disposition reinforces the high bar for establishing past persecution and CAT eligibility in the Ninth Circuit, particularly in cases involving gang violence in El Salvador. It underscores that extortion and threats by criminal organizations, absent a nexus to a protected ground or government acquiescence in torture, generally do not warrant immigration relief. The decision also highlights the procedural rigor of exhaustion and forfeiture doctrines: petitioners must raise all claims and arguments before the BIA, including specific challenges to particular social group definitions, or risk waiver on appeal.
While non-precedential, the ruling illustrates the court’s deferential substantial evidence review and the difficulty of converting gang-related victimization into successful asylum or withholding claims. The ruling is limited to the record and procedural posture before the court. It does not decide questions the opinion expressly left unresolved, and an unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum is not precedential except as Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 permits.