Carlos Rojas-Mondragon v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ROBERTO ROJAS- No. 18-71554
MONDRAGON,
Agency No. A201-240-589
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 9, 2020**
Portland, Oregon
Before: BENNETT and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and NAVARRO,*** District
Judge.
Carlos Rojas-Mondragon, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal
*
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).
***
The Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, United States District Judge for
the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Zhi v. Holder, 751
F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition.
The BIA denied relief after finding Rojas-Mondragon did not meet his
burden to show that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect
him from the private persecution he suffered or fears. Substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s finding.
Rojas-Mondragon did not present evidence which compels the conclusion
that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to control the type of harm
he suffered. Only one article in the record discusses the conflict between
Hondurans and Nicaraguan refugees. The article describes rising tensions between
the residents of one Nicaraguan refugee camp and the surrounding Honduran
population after one Honduran “detained a refugee in a dispute over firewood.”
The Honduran police responded to the conflict, and both the United Nations and
Honduran officials “feel that the problems have been solved.” To the extent any
tensions discussed in the article remain, the article does not discuss violence
against Nicaraguan refugees on account of their nationality or refugee status. The
article only describes conflict over resources including firewood, food, and
medicine.
2
The remaining evidence Rojas-Mondragon offered in support of his
petition—several news articles and a U.S. State Department country report—
indicates that the Honduran government struggles to control private persecution at
the hands of organized crime. The BIA concluded that “the mistreatment the
respondent experienced and fears is from private citizens with no apparent
connection to organized crime.” The record is devoid of evidence that would
compel a different conclusion.
Given the lack of evidence germane to Rojas-Mondragon’s claim, we cannot
hold that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude” the
Honduran government was unable or unwilling to control Rojas-Mondragon’s
alleged persecutors. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483–84 (1992). Accordingly, the BIA properly rejected Rojas-Mondragon’s
claim to relief. Cf. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1069–70 (9th
Cir. 2017) (explaining that an asylum-seeker bears the burden to show “by a
preponderance of evidence, considering all the evidence in the record” that the
government of removal is unable or unwilling to control the private persecution
alleged).
PETITION DENIED.
3