
    Emma Lorena BONILLA DE IBARRA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73606
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 20, 2017 San Francisco, California
    Filed May 02, 2017
    Tiffany Joana Gates, Attorney, Law Offices of Tiffany J. Gates, Santa Rosa, CA, Stephen Tollafield, Assistant Director, Hastings College of the Law, University of California, Gary A. Watt, Esquire, Attorney, Hanson Bridgett LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner
    William Clark Minick, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and STAFFORD, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Emma Lorena Bonilla de Ibarra (“Bonilla de Ibarra”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) denial of her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.

Bonilla de Ibarra argues that she qualified for asylum and withholding of removal due to persecution on the basis of her membership in two separate particular social groups: the social group of women married to police officers and the social group of married women unable to leave their relationships.

1. Assuming there is a cognizable social group of women married to police officers of which Bonilla de Ibarra is a member, Bonilla de Ibarra cannot establish she suffered past persecution. Bonilla de Ibarra alleges that she was verbally threatened by gang members and that her house was once burglarized by gang members. This does not rise to the level of a finding of persecution we can recognize. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 1998).

2. Assuming that Bonilla de Ibarra’s mistreatment by her husband would have amounted to persecution, Bonilla de Ibarra cannot establish that she was a member of a particular social group of women unable to leave their relationships. Bonilla de Ibarra testified that she moved out of her husband’s home, that her husband would grant her a divorce, and that she could relocate within El Salvador. The evidence does not compel a finding that Bonilla de Ibarra was unable to leave her marriage.

The petition is DENIED, 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     