Natavidad Duran Escobar v. Loretta E. Lynch, 676 F. App'x 670

Duran, a Salvadoran national, appealed the BIA’s final order dismissing her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after an IJ denied relief.
She reported three bus robberies by guerrillas in El Salvador; she was not physically harmed and presented no evidence the robberies were motivated by a protected ground.
Duran argued future persecution risks based on: (1) potential gang recruitment of her U.S.-citizen son Carlos; (2) her son’s disabilities (ADHD and depression); and (3) being a returnee from the U.S. perceived as wealthier.
The IJ and BIA found her evidence insufficient to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution; they also denied CAT protection and a remand to apply Perdomo.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and denied the petition, affirming the Agency on all claims and finding no abuse of discretion in denying remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Duran suffered past persecution in El Salvador	Duran: bus robberies by guerrillas amounted to persecution	Gov: incidents were thefts/robberies, not persecution tied to a protected ground	Held: No past persecution; robberies insufficient and no nexus to protected ground
Whether Duran has a well-founded fear of future persecution	Duran: gangs may target/recruit her U.S.-citizen son Carlos	Gov: no evidence gangs targeted her family; Carlos nearly adult and not required to return	Held: No well-founded fear as to Carlos recruitment risk
Whether a fear based on son's disabilities or returnee status establishes asylum/withholding/CAT eligibility	Duran: son’s ADHD/depression and her returnee status make them vulnerable	Gov: medications available; no evidence of discrimination or targeting of her family or other returnees	Held: No reasonable possibility of persecution for disability or returnee status; withholding denied; CAT relief also denied (no likely torture)
Whether BIA abused discretion denying remand to apply Perdomo (recognizing women as a social group)	Duran: should be allowed to submit new evidence under Perdomo recognizing women as a cognizable group	Gov: Duran offered no evidence she faced violence as a woman or would do so on return	Held: No abuse of discretion; remand denied because Perdomo did not change her lack of evidence

Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2004) (theft/robbery without protected-ground nexus does not constitute persecution)
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (criminal harassment motivated by theft or random violence lacks nexus to protected ground)
Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that Guatemalan women may constitute a cognizable social group)
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (broad group of returnees from the U.S. is not a cognizable social group)
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (withholding requires meeting asylum burden or higher standard)
Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2008) (CAT requires showing it is more likely than not the applicant will be tortured)
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognition that women in a particular country can form a particular social group)