NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS
2 

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 Petitioners did not rise to the level of past 

persecution and they failed to sustain their burden of showing it would not be 

reasonable for 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 

applications for asylum and withholding of removal. On August 17, 2018, the IJ 

found the 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. Petitioners claim denial of withholding of 

removal was not supported by substantial evidence because on September 22, 

2014, Petitioner Jose Villeda discovered an unknown young man attempting to 
3 

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 clinic, and experienced temporary vision loss.

Thereafter, members of the gang to which the assailant belonged came to 

Petitioner 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. Petitioners left Honduras in November 2014 and lived in Mexico prior 

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

remain unharmed. 

The record does not compel 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 are very rarely sufficient to rise to the level of 

persecution” and that although petitioner’s father was threatened, “no harm ever 
4 

came to his father, mother, or siblings”). Because the BIA correctly concluded that 

Petitioners did not suffer past persecution, 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) (“In cases in which the applicant has not established 

past persecution, the applicant shall bear the 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.