Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Vilma Miranda-Barrientos and Darwin Estiven Henriquez-Miranda, both natives and citizens of El Salvador, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge denied their applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that denial. The petitioners then asked the Ninth Circuit to review the Board's decision. A panel of Judges M. Smith, Christen, and Miller took the case on the briefs, without oral argument, on October 26, 2026, and issued an unpublished memorandum on October 28, 2026.
The asylum and withholding claims rested on threats and extortion by gang members in El Salvador. Miranda relied on two proposed particular social groups, which the memorandum does not describe. She testified that she was "not sure as to why" the gang members started extorting her, but that gang members often target business owners and threaten "pretty much everybody in El Salvador for money." The agency concluded that the harm was not connected to a protected ground.
The court had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. It reviewed the agency's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence, under which findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.
The Court’s Holding
The panel held that substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that the gang members who threatened petitioners were motivated purely by criminality, not by Miranda's membership in either of her proposed particular social groups. Asylum and withholding of removal both require a nexus between past or feared persecution and a protected ground. For asylum, the protected ground must be "one central reason" for the persecution. For withholding, it must be "a reason." Miranda's own testimony, that she did not know why she was targeted and that gangs threaten nearly everyone for money, did not compel a different conclusion, and the court found nothing else in the record pointing to another motive.
Because the failure to establish nexus resolves both the asylum and the withholding claims, the court expressly declined to decide whether the harm petitioners suffered in El Salvador rose to the level of persecution. That question remains undecided in this case.
On CAT relief, petitioners did not address the issue in their opening brief. The court therefore treated any challenge to the agency's determination that they are ineligible for CAT protection as forfeited, citing Hernandez v. Garland, and did not review the merits of that denial. The petition for review was denied.
Key Takeaways
- When an applicant cannot say why gang members targeted her and her own testimony describes broad extortion of business owners and nearly everyone else, the record can support a finding of purely criminal motive rather than a protected ground.
- Asylum requires that a protected ground be one central reason for the harm, while withholding requires only a reason, but the panel found no nexus under either standard.
- A failure to show nexus ends asylum and withholding claims, so the court did not decide whether the harm amounted to persecution.
- An issue omitted from the opening brief, here CAT relief, is forfeited, and the court did not reach the merits of the agency's CAT denial.
- The memorandum is unpublished and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The denial leaves the Board's order in place.
Why It Matters
The memorandum applies familiar Ninth Circuit standards to a common fact pattern: gang extortion in El Salvador. It shows how an applicant's own testimony about the breadth of gang threats can undercut a nexus theory under the deferential substantial-evidence standard, where reversal requires that the record compel a contrary conclusion. It announces no new rule about particular social groups and does not decide whether the groups Miranda proposed were cognizable.
Because the disposition is unpublished, it carries no precedential weight, though it may be cited as Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 permits. The briefing lesson is practical: the CAT claim was lost through forfeiture, not through any ruling on the likelihood of torture. With the petition denied, no issue remains open before the panel on these claims.