NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEISY YAQUELIN ORDONEZ

- GODOY and CALEB JOEL SAUCEDA

- ORDONEZ,

Petitioners,
v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 17

- 71840 Agency Nos. A206

- 843

- 750

A206

- 843

- 751
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 11, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: ROGERS, ** BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Deisy Ordonez

- Godoy, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the BIA’s decision upholding the IJ ’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable John M. Rogers, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED
JUN 29 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 71840

Ordonez

- Godoy also claims that the IJ and BIA denied her due process. Caleb Joel Sauceda

- Ordonez, Ordonez

- Godoy ’s minor son, is a derivative beneficiary of her claims. We have jurisdiction pursu ant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Ordonez

- Godoy ’s application for asylum. “In order to reverse the BIA, we must determine ‘ that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it

— and also compels the further conclusion’ that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief,” Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) ), but here t he record does not compel reversal. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ordonez

- Godoy did not suffer past persecution. Ordonez

Godoy was never physically harmed or directly threatened by the Figueroas. Ordonez

- Godoy credibly testifie d to threats against her husband by the Figueroas, but during her only direct interaction with the Figueroas

— when an armed group of gang members came to her home shortly after her husband fled Honduras

— a gang member told her he was friends with her father and expressed no interest in harming her. Ordonez

- Godoy remained in the country for nearly two years following the incident without harm. Absent a showing of past persecution, Ordonez

- Godoy cannot benefit fro m a presumption of a fear of future persecution, and substantial evidence supports the3 17

- 71840

BIA’s determination that Ordonez

- Godoy did not establish a well

- founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. First, substantial evidence support s the BIA’s conclusion that Ordonez

- Godoy is unlikely to be persecuted based on her relationship with her husband’s politically active family. During Ordonez

- Godoy’s single direct encounter with the Figueroas they expressed no desire to harm her even thou gh they were aware that she was living with her husband’s family; she lived in her husband’s family’s home for nearly two more years without incident; and there is no evidence that anyone in Ordonez

- Godoy’s hometown has been specifically targeted because o f his or her relationship with the Sauceda

- Velasquez family. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ordonez

- Godoy did not establish a well

- founded fear of future persecution based on her political opinion. It is true that the Figue roas have targeted her husband’s uncle and cousin, who were political candidates for mayor, as well as her husband’s aunt and other uncle, who served as campaign managers. But the record here does not compel the finding that the Figueroas imputed the se po litical beliefs to Ordonez

- Godoy. Again, Ordonez

- Godoy has had a single interaction with the Figueroas and they expressed no interest in harming her, despite knowing that she lived with her husband’s politically active family. She lived with her husband’ s family without incident throughout the mayoral campaign, and she lived in Honduras without harm for more4 17

- 71840

than a year after the assassination of her husband’s uncle. H er husband’s parents have continued to live in Honduras since that time without harm, d espite the inclusion of her father

- in

- law on the Figueroas’ hit list

. Further, b ecause Ordonez

- Godoy failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to satisfy the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Lanza v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 917, 933 (9th Cir. 2004)

. We do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of Ordonez

- Godoy ’s CAT claim. Because Ordonez

- Godoy did not appeal the IJ’s adverse CAT decision to the BIA, she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect t o her CAT claim. See Alvarado v. Holder , 759 F.3d 1121, 1127 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014)

. Ordonez

- Godoy was not denied due process. The transcript of Ordonez

Godoy’s hearing does not support her assertion that the IJ demonstrated actual bias or prejudgment. The IJ was within her authority to question Ordonez

- Godoy during the hearing. 8 U.S.C
. § 1229a(b)(1 ); see Halaim v. INS , 358 F.3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) . Moreover, while the IJ at times was terse with Ordonez

- Godoy and her counsel, “a mere showing that the IJ was unfriendly, confrontational, or acted in an adversarial manner is not en ough” to demonstrate that a petitioner has been denied due process. Rizo v. Lynch , 810 F.3d 688, 693 (9th Cir. 2016)

. Ordonez

- Godoy also claim s that the IJ denied her due process by denying her motion to consolidate her case with her husband’s . But the issue was not exhausted before the agency because5 17

- 71840

it was not substantively raised before the BIA, and the BIA did not consider the issue when it adopted the immigration judge’s October 18, 2016, decision . Thus, the issue is not properly before us

. See So la v. Holder , 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Finally, the BIA’s evidentiary rulings did not deny Ordonez

- Godoy due process. Ordonez

- Godoy complains that the IJ afforded diminished weight to a report about conditions in Honduras. B ut IJ s retain broad discretion to “weigh the evidence’s credibility and probative force.” Vatyan v. Mukasey , 508 F.3d 1179, 1185 n.4 (9th Cir. 2007) . Here the IJ’s decision was not an abuse of discretion. The IJ observed that the report was incomplete and wa s not accompanied by an appropriate English translation, even though foreign language documents offered in a proceeding must be accompanied by an English l anguage translation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.33 . Ordonez

- Godoy also complains that the BIA failed to con sider new evidence she provided on appeal. But 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) instructs the BIA to “not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding appeals.” Moreover, reversal on due process grounds requires that the proceeding had been “so fundamental ly unfair that the alien was prevented from r easonably presenting [her] case. ” Platero

Cortez v. INS , 804 F.2d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 1986) . That standard was not met here , and Ordonez

- Godoy did not ask the BIA to reopen her case. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PARTOrdone

z-Godoy v . Se ssions , No. 17-71840 W ATFOR D , C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I would gra

nt the pe tition for re vie w. Eve n if we a s sum e tha t De isy Ordone z -Godoy did not suffe r pa st pe rse c ution, I think the e vide nc e c om

pe l s the
c onc lusion tha

t she ha s a we ll-founde d fe a r of future pe rse c ution if she is forc e d to
re turn to he r na tive Hondura s. The sourc e of Ordone z -Godoy ’ s we l l-founde d fe a r is a fa m ily orga niz a tion, known a s the Figue roa s, tha t c om m its a c ts of viole nc e a nd intim ida tion on be ha lf of the le a ding na

tiona l politic a l pa

rty . B oth Ordone z -Godoy ’ s husba nd a nd he r husba n d’ s fa m ily

ha ve be e n the ta

rge ts of a n ongoing c a

m p a ign of viole nc e wa ge d by the Figue roa s. It sta

rte d in 2012, whe n Ordone z -Godoy ’ s husba nd he lpe d sa

ve the l ife of a

m a n who ha d be e n shot by the Figue roa s . Afte r tha t, the Figue roa s trie d to kill Ordone z -Godoy ’ s husba nd. The y c a lle d Ordone z -Godoy ’ s fa the r-inla w se v e ra l tim e s, thre a t e ning his son’ s life . The y shot up a c a r tha t looke d

like the
one Ordone z -Godoy ’ s fa m i ly drove , on the sa

m e roa d tha

t he r husba

nd, fa the r-inla w, a nd brothe rs-in-la

w took to work e a c h m o rning. All of the oc c upa n ts in the
c a r we re wounde d or kille d. Shortly a fte r the a tta c k, Ordone z -Godoy ’ s fa the r-inla w re c e ive d a

nothe r thre a te ning c a l l from the Figue roa s. B e c a

use of the
c ontinue d thre a ts to his life , Ordone z -Godoy ’ s husba nd fle d to the Unite d Sta te s in April 2012. 

# FIL ED
JUN 29 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALSPa ge 2 of 3

Ordone z -Godoy re m a ine d in Hondura s a nd c ontinue d to live in the hom e of he r husba nd’ s fa m ily , in a town whe re e ve ry one tre a t e d Ordone z -Godoy a s a n
e xte nde d m e m

be r of the fa m i ly . He r husba nd’ s fa m ily

m e m be rs we re politic a lly
a c tive in opposition to the ruling pa rty , a nd tha t c a u se d the m

to be c om e ta

rge ts of viole nc e a t the ha

nds of the Figue roa s. In 2013, the unc le of Ordone z -Godoy ’ s husba n d ra n for m a y or of the town in whic h the y live d. Ordone z -Godoy , he r husba n d’ s a unt, a nd a nothe r of he r husba

nd’ s unc le s a ll he l pe d with the c a m pa ign. B oth the a

unt a nd unc l e we re a ssa ssina

te d be c a use of the ir politic a l a ffilia t ion with the u nc le ’ s c a m

pa ign. The unc le running for offic e wa s subse que ntly a ssa s sina te d
a s we ll. The unc le ’ s da

ughte r took ove r his m a

y ora l c a m pa ign a nd she , too, wa s the v ic tim of a n a tte m pte d a ssa ssina

tion. In June

2014, som e one c o nne c t e d to the Figue roa s told Ordone z -Godoy tha t he r husba

nd a nd fa the r-in-la

w we re ne xt on the orga niz a tion’ s hit list. Tha

t wa s the la st stra

w for Ordone z -Godoy . She fle d to the Unite d Sta te s, whe re she now live s with he r husba n d a nd the ir two c hildre n, one of whom is a n Am e ric a

n c itiz e n. This e vide nc e e sta

blishe s tha

t Ordone z -Godoy

fa c e s a t le a st a te n

pe rc e nt
c ha nc e of be i ng pe rse c ute d a t the ha nds of the Figue roa s ba se d on he r politic a l opinions a

nd he r a ffilia

tion with he r husba

nd’ s politic a l ly

a c tive fa m ily . Ordone z Godoy is no diffe re ntly

situa te d tha n he r husba

nd’ s a unt a nd unc le : The y a llPa ge 3 of 3

pla y e d sim i la

r role s in the othe r unc le ’ s m a y o ra l c a m pa ign, a nd the a unt a n d unc le
we re m urde re d on a c c ount of those ve ry politic a l a c tivitie s. W ha t’ s m ore , the thre a t Ordone z -Godoy

fa c e s re m a ins re a l: Afte r Ordone z -Godoy fle d to the Unite d Sta t e s, he r m othe r-in-la

w de c ide d to run for m a y o r of the sa m e town in Hondura s,
a nd she be ga

n re c e iving a

n o ny m ous c a l ls (pre sum a bly from the Figue roa s) thre a te ning tha

t he r e ntire fa m ily

would be m

urde re d if she did not drop out of the
ra c e . I would the re fore gra nt the pe tition for re vie w a nd hold tha

t Ordone z -Godoy is e ligible for a sy lum

.