Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ana Hermelinda Perez-Isidro and her two minor children, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of their appeal from an Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of asylum. Perez-Isidro claimed she was targeted by gang members who extorted money and goods from her stores, culminating in a threat to kill her and her children if she did not pay $3,000. The gang members mentioned her husband's presence in the United States as a reason they believed she had money. Perez-Isidro argued this established a nexus to a particular social group based on her husband's prior refusal to cooperate with the gang.
The IJ denied relief, finding that Perez-Isidro failed to establish the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to protect her and that the harm she suffered was motivated by financial extortion rather than a protected ground. The BIA dismissed her appeal. The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviewed the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review. First, the court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that the Salvadoran government was not unwilling or unable to control Perez-Isidro's feared persecutors. The agency considered her interaction with police, who took her report and told her they could help, as well as country-conditions evidence reflecting government efforts to combat gang violence. This evidence provided substantial support for the determination that Perez-Isidro failed to establish the government was unable or unwilling to protect her.
Second, the court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that Perez-Isidro did not establish a nexus between her past harm and a proposed particular social group. Her interactions with gang members revolved entirely around extortion for money and goods. Although the gang mentioned her husband's presence in the United States during the final threat, they did so only to explain why they believed she had money. The admitted monetary motive and history of pecuniary extortion meant the cursory mention of her husband's U.S. location was insufficient to compel the conclusion that the gang targeted her because of her husband's prior refusal to cooperate with the gang. Because she failed to establish past persecution on a protected ground, she also failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. The court also noted Perez-Isidro forfeited any challenge to the agency's CAT determination by failing to raise it.
Key Takeaways
- Substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that the Salvadoran government was willing and able to protect the petitioner, based on police responsiveness and country-conditions evidence.
- A petitioner's fear of gang violence motivated by financial extortion does not establish a nexus to a protected ground, even if gang members reference a family member's U.S. location as a reason for believing the petitioner has money.
- The cursory mention of a family member's prior refusal to cooperate with a gang is insufficient to compel a finding of persecution on account of a particular social group when the record shows a consistent pattern of monetary extortion.
- Failure to raise a CAT claim in the opening brief before the Ninth Circuit results in forfeiture of that claim.
Why It Matters
This memorandum disposition reinforces the high bar for establishing government inability or unwillingness to protect in gang-violence asylum claims from El Salvador, crediting police responsiveness and government anti-gang efforts as substantial evidence. It also clarifies that references to a family member's U.S. location by extortionists, without more, do not transform financially motivated crimes into persecution on account of a protected ground. The decision underscores the importance of exhausting all claims, including CAT, in the opening brief to preserve them for appellate review.