Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANA HERMELINDA PEREZ-ISIDRO; T. No. 25-5337 E. R.-P.; R. A. R.-P., Agency Nos. A212-977-445 Petitioners, A212-977-446 A212-977-447 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 22, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: BUMATAY, VANDYKE, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Petitioners, Ana Hermelinda Perez-Isidro (“Perez”) and her two minor children (“T.E.R.P.” and “R.A.R.P.”),1 natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the BIA’s dismissal of their appeal from the decision of an Immigration * 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). 1 Perez’s children apply for asylum as derivative beneficiaries of her claim. Judge (“IJ”) denying their asylum claim. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). Under this standard, administrative findings of fact are conclusive except in the narrowest of circumstances—if the record compels a different conclusion. Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 703 (9th Cir. 2022). 1. The record does not compel the conclusion that the Salvadoran government was unwilling or unable to control Perez’s feared persecutors. In reaching that conclusion, the agency considered Perez’s interaction with the police, who took her report and told her they could help, as well as the objective country-conditions evidence reflecting the Salvadoran government’s efforts to combat gang violence. See Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 648 (9th Cir. 2021). This evidence provides substantial support for the agency’s determination that Perez failed to establish that the government was unable or unwilling to protect her. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). 2. Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Perez did not establish any nexus between her past harm and proposed PSG, she fails to establish past persecution for both asylum and withholding. Perez did not have any interactions with the gang members until they began extorting her for money and 2 goods at her stores, and the record shows her interactions with them revolved around extortion. Perez testified that the gang members’ motivation during her final interaction—during which they mentioned that others wanted her dead, said they knew her husband was located in the United States, and threatened to kill her and her children if she did not pay them $3,000—was financial. In light of the admitted monetary motive and history of pecuniary extortion, the cursory mention of her husband’s presence in the United States as the reason the gang thought she “had money” is not enough to compel the conclusion that the gang members targeted her because of her husband’s previous refusal to cooperate with gang members.2 PETITION DENIED.3 2 Perez failed to raise an argument regarding CAT before this court, thereby forfeiting any challenge to the agency’s CAT determination. See Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020). 3 The Motion to Stay Removal and Supplemental Motion to Stay Removal are denied. 3