Orellana-Aguilar v. Bondi
24-3439
| 9th Cir. | May 19, 2025Background
- Simon Antonio Orellana-Aguilar, a native of El Salvador, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision upholding the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- The Immigration Judge originally denied all claims; the BIA dismissed Orellana-Aguilar's appeal.
- Petitioner claimed that he was threatened and extorted by gangs as a teenager in El Salvador and feared future harm as a member of a proposed social group: young men in El Salvador who refuse gang authority.
- He testified to repeated extortion by different gangs and an instance of armed robbery; he also mentioned refusing recruitment into a gang.
- Orellana-Aguilar did not challenge the asylum claim's dismissal based on the one-year bar, so only withholding of removal and CAT were reviewed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, considering only the arguments properly raised by petitioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Withholding of Removal | Threats/extortion due to PSG (refusal) | Harm was economic, not due to PSG | Denied: No nexus to protected ground; harm was for money |
| CAT Protection | Likely to be tortured if returned to El Salvador | Did not show specific, individualized risk | Denied: No evidence petitioner would be singled out for torture |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Garland, 116 F.4th 1032 (9th Cir. 2024) (sets forth scope of appellate review and deference to BIA)
- Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (court upholds BIA findings unless evidence compels contrary result)
- Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (persecution must be on account of a protected ground)
- Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (victims of crime not per se eligible for protection based on protected ground)