NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KAREN ESTELA ALVAREZ-MENJIVAR; No. 16-71661

EDGARDO VLADIMIR RODRIGUEZ-

ALVAREZ, Agency Nos. A202-001-947

A202-001-948

Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Karen Estela Alvarez-Menjivar, and her son, Edgardo Vladimir Rodriguez-

Alvarez, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s

* 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). decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm

petitioners experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-

Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel

finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no

violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats). Substantial

evidence also supports the conclusion that petitioners did not establish a well-

founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th

Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence

demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum

claims fail.

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case they

did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at

1190.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

petitioners did not establish that it is more likely than not they would be tortured by

2 16-71661 or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador.

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contentions that the

agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 16-71661