NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ANTONIO VILLEDA MIRANDA , et al., Petitioners,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 72637 Agency Nos. A095

- 129

- 475

A208

- 574

- 875 A208

- 574

- 876

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 12, 2022 * * San Francisco, California Before: CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and REISS, ** * District Judge.
Petitioner Jose Antonio Villeda Miranda (“Petitioner Jose Villeda”) and two of his minor sons (collectively, “Petitioners”) , natives and citizens of Honduras,

* 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 Christina Reiss, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

APR 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA ”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of withholding of removal

. The
BIA held that the harm suffered by Petitioner s did not rise to the level of past persecution and th ey failed to sustain their burden of showing it would not be
reasonable fo r them to relocate within Honduras. We conclude the BIA’s findings are supported by substantial evidence , Sharma v. Garland , 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021), and deny the petition.
Petitioner Jose Villeda has entered the United States on five prior occasions
and was removed each time. On April 30, 2016, he and his sons sought entry into the United States and were placed into removal proceedings. Petitioners filed application s for asylum and withholding of removal. On August 17, 201 8 , the IJ
found t he one

- year bar precluded consideration of Petitioners’ asylum claims. On the merits, the IJ denied withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“ CAT ”) and entered a removal order. Petitioners appealed only the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal. The BIA dismissed their appeal. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those necessary to decide the petition. Petitioner s claim denial of withholding of removal was not supported by substantia l evidence because on September 22, 2014, Petitioner Jose Villeda discover ed an unknown young man attempt ing to3

rape the eleven

- year - old daughter of his domestic partner. The assailant fled the scene, and Petitioner Jose Villeda followed him. The assailant threw rocks at
Petitioner Jose Villeda and approximately three struck him

. He was rendered unconscious, treated at a clini c , and experienced temporary vision loss.
There after , members of the gang to which the assailant belonged came to
Petitione r Jose Villeda’s house and threatened to kill him and his children

. Petitioner Jose Villeda reported the attempted rape and rock

- throwing incident to the police , who refused to intervene. He believes the gang that threatened him was
MS

- 13 but conceded he did not know the identity or affiliation of the gang
members. Petitioner s left Honduras in November 201 4 and lived in Mexico prior

to their arrival in the United States. They have family members in Honduras who
remain unharmed.

T he record does not com pel a conclusion that Petitioners ’ alleged harm rises to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) ( “ Persecution

. . . is ‘ an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive. ’ ”) (citation omitted) ; Sharma , 9 F.4th
at 1061

– 62 (holding that “an isolated incident” generally does not rise to the level of persecution); Hussain v. Rosen , 985 F.3d 634, 647 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that “[u]nfulfilled threats a re very rarely sufficient to rise to the level of persecution” and that although petitioner’s father was threatened, “no harm ever4

came to his father, mother, or siblings”). Because the BIA correctly concluded that Petitioners did not suffer past persecut ion, it properly placed the burden on them to
establish that it would not be reasonable for them to relocate within Honduras. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (3)(i) (“ I n cases in which the applicant has not established past persecution, the applicant shall bear t he burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate, unless the persecutor is a government or is government

- sponsored .”). The BIA’s determination that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden is supported by substantial evidence.
PETITION DENIED.