N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R ODOLFO B ELLO M IR ANDA, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-72747 Age n c y No. A208-923-496
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M ay

3, 2021 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : B OGGS, * ** TASHIM A , a nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s. R odolfo B e llo M iranda , a native an d

c itiz e n of M e x ic o, pe titions for re vie w of a de c i sion of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA or B oa rd), dism issing his 

# FIL ED MAY21 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2)(C ).

* * * The Honora

ble Da nny J. B oggs, Unite d

Stat e s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.a

ppe a l of a de c ision of theIm

m igrat ion Judge (IJ), who de nie d his a p plic a tion for
a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ), and we de ny the p e tition. 1. The B oa

rd’ s c onc lusion tha

t the tre at m e nt M iranda

suffe re d did not rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution is not supporte d by substa ntia l e v ide nc e . “ De a th thre a ts a lone c an c onstitute pe rse c ution, a

nd ‘ [v] iole n c e dire c te d a ga i nst . . . fa m ily
m e m b e rs provide s support for a c la im of pe rse c ution a

nd in som e insta

n c e s is suffic i e nt to e sta

blish pe rse c ution.’ ” K

aur v . W ilk inson , 986 F.3d 1216, 1227 (9th C ir. 2021) (quoting Baballah v
. Ashc roft , 367 F.3d 1067, 1074–75 (9th C ir. 2004) (c ita tion om itte d)). Afte r M olina kille d M iranda ’ s brothe r and M iranda file d a
c om pla i nt a ga inst M olina , M iranda wa s thre a te ne d with thede a th of one of his
c hildre n or re lative s if he c ontinue d with thec om p la int. The following da

y , M olina se nt two m e n to M iranda ’ s m othe r-in-la w’ s store to te ll M iran da

tha t if M olina e n de d up in ja i l, the y

would kill M iranda . Lat e r that e ve ning, two pe ople
c a m e to M iran da ’ s hom e and a g a in thre a te ne d to kill him . The se “ re pe a te d,”

“ m e na c ing de a th thre a ts” a re suffic ie nt to e sta

blish pe rse c ution, pa

rtic ula rly be c a use the de a th thre a ts we re “ c om bine d with c onfronta

tion.” Lim v . IN

S , 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th C ir. 2000).
2None the le ss, a s the IJ a nd B IA found, M iranda ha s not m e t his burde n of
e sta blishing tha

t the gove rnm e nt wa s “ ‘ una ble or unwilling to c ontrol’ ” the pe rse c utors. Ville

gas Sanc he

z v . Garland

, 990 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th C ir. 2021) (quoting Baghdasaryan v . Holde r , 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th C ir. 2010)). M iranda
and his m othe r file d c om

pla ints a g a inst M olina

with the distric t attorne y , who ope ne d a c rim ina l c a se and indic a te d tha t she wa s willing to c o ntinue with the c a se . The e vide nc e thus doe s not c o m pe l the c o nc lusion tha

t the B IA e rre d in finding M iranda fa ile d to e sta

blish e ligibility

for a sy lum
. Se e Parada v . Se ssions , 902 F.3d 901, 908-09 (9th C ir. 2018) (e xpla ining tha t “ we m ay only

re ve rse the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm i na tion whe re ‘ the e vide n c e c om pe ls a c ontra ry c onc lusion from

tha t
a dopte d by

the B IA.’ ” (quoting Afriy ie v . Holde r , 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th C ir. 2010))). 2. W e de c line to a ddre ss M iranda ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the B IA e rrone ously found he wa s not a

m e m b e r of two pa

rtic ula r soc ia l groups be c a

use the B IA did not a ddre ss the issue
. Se e Budiono v . Ly n c h , 837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ Our re vie w is limite d to thosegrounds e xplic i tly re l ie d upon by

the B oa rd.” ). M ore o ve r, e ve n if he c a

n e s ta blish his me m

be rship in a pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group, a s sta te d a bove , M iranda

ha s fa ile d to m e e t his burde n of e sta blishing tha

t “ ‘ the pe rse c ution wa s c om

m i tte d by the gove rnm e n t, or by forc e s tha

t the gove rnm e nt
3wa s una

ble or unwilling to c o ntrol.’ ” V i lle gas Sanc he

z , 990 F.3d a

t 1179 (quoting Baghdasaryan , 592 F.3d a t 1023). 3. B e c a

use M iranda

ha s fa ile d to e sta

blish e ligibility

for a sy lum , his
c la im s for withholding of re m ova l a n d C AT re l ie f a lso fa il. Like a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l re quire s a showing of pe rse c ution “ inflic te d e ithe r by the gove rnm e nt or by

pe rsons or orga

niz a tions whic h the gove rnm e nt is una ble or unwilling to c ontrol.” O rne las-C hav e z v . Gonzale

s , 458 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th C ir. 2006). Sim ila

rly , to qua lify

for prote c tion unde r C AT, one m ust de m o nstra

te tha t public offic ia ls ha

ve a c quie sc e d

in one ’ s torture , whic h inc lude s a showing tha

t the offic ia ls a re “ unable

or unw illing

to oppose it.” Rodrique

z Torne s v . Garland

, 993 F.3d 743, 754 (9th C ir. 2021) (quoting Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th C ir. 2014)). 4. Assum ing, without de c iding, tha t the IJ e rre d

in e xc luding som e of M iranda ’ s e xhibits a

nd te stim ony , we c onc l ude tha t M iranda ha s fa ile d to e sta

blish the re quisite substa

ntia l pre judic e from

the a l le ge d due proc e s s viola tion. Se e Hussain v . Rose n , 985 F.3d 634, 645 (9th C ir. 2021) (“ ‘ To pre va il on a due proc e ss c ha lle nge to de porta

tion proc e e dings, [thepe titione r] m ust show [both] e rror a nd substa ntia l pre j udic e .’ ” (quoting Grigory an v . Barr , 959 F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th C ir. 2020))). M iranda te s tifie d to the e ve nts supporting his a pplic at ion, a

nd the IJ
4found him

to be c re dible
. Se e Vargas-He rnande z v . Gonzale

s , 497 F.3d 919, 926–27 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ W he re an a lie n is give n a

full a nd fa ir opportunity

to be
re pre se nte d by

c ounse l , to pre pa

re an a pplic a tion for . . . re lie f, and to pre se nt te stim ony and othe r e vide n c e in support of the a p plic a tion, he or she ha s be e n provide d with dueproc e ss.” ). M iranda a sse rts tha

t he c ould ha

ve provide d furthe r de ta ils a bout the m

urde r of his brothe r’ s brothe r-in-la w a nd the shooting in his
ne ighborhood, but he

doe s not spe c ify what those de ta ils a re . Se e Hussain , 985 F.3d at 645 (finding no pre judic e whe re the pe titione r did not “ point to a ny
a dditiona l e vide nc e of pe rse c u t ion or the grounds upon which the B IA de nie d him
a sy lum ” ). The pe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D.

5