N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FR ANC IS YAC K ELIN VARELA M AR TINEZ; FAVIANA VAR ELA M AR TINEZ,

Pe t i tione rs,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 22-106 Age n c y Nos. A202-162-916 A202-162-917
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 2, 2023 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , C ALLAHAN, a nd LEE, C irc u it Judge s.
Franc is Va

re la M artine z pe titions for re vie w of a de c ision by the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) dism issing he r a ppe a l from

the de nia l of he r 

# FIL ED

OCT 23 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* 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 c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).a

pplic a tion for a s y lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e re vie w the B IA’ s le g a l c o nc lusions de
novo a nd its fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e vide nc e . J

.R. v . Barr , 975 F.3d 778, 781 (9th C i r. 2020). W e de ny the pe tition. Vare la M artine z argue s tha t the B IA e rre d in finding the Hondura n gove rnm e nt a

ble and willing to pre

ve nt the dom e stic viole nc e and a buse tha t prom pte d he r to le ave Hondura s. He r te stim ony and de c la

ra tion indic a te that whe n she c a lle d the polic e to prote c t he r from he r e x-pa rtne r C a rdona , the re sponding offic e r told C ardona

to sta y away from he r an d re m a i ne d with him while Va re la M artine zle ft the are a . The thre a t of polic e involve m e nt a lso stoppe d the a tte m pte d
a ssa ult by W ue ste r tha t im m e diate ly pre c e d e d he r de pa

rture from

Hondura s . In
a ddition, Va

re la M a rtine zte stifie d tha

t re stra ining orde rs a

re ava ila ble to vic tim s of dom e stic viole n c e and tha t he r “ worst m ista

ke ” wa s not re porting C ardona ’ s a buse
e arlie r. W e m

ust c onc lude tha

t substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s finding unle ss “ ‘ any

re a sona ble a djudic a tor would bec o m pe lle d to c onc lude to the
c ontra ry ’ ba se d o n

the e vide nc e in the re c o rd.” J .R. , 975 F.3d a

t 781–82 (quoting Bringas-Rodrigue

z v . Se ssions , 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th C ir. 2017) (e n ba nc )). In light of the

a bove , we c annot sa

y tha t the re c ord a s a

whole “ c om

p e ls the
c onc lusion” tha

t the a ge nc y ’ s finding wa s e rrone ous. Dav ila v

. Barr , 968 F.3d
21136, 1141 (9th C ir. 2020) (quoting C ordon-Garc ia v . I.N

.S. , 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th C ir. 2000)). The re c ord a lso doe s not c om pe l a finding tha

t re loc a t ion within Hondura s would be unsa fe or unre a sona ble . Va re la M artine z argue s tha

t the B IA e rre d by pla c ing the burde n on he r to prove she c ould not sa fe ly re l oc at e , but tha

t burde n is
a ppropria te whe n a n a sy lum a pplic ant ha s not shown pa st pe rse c ution. DuranRodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th C i r. 2019). Va re l a M a rtine z te stifie d that he r a buse rs would be a

ble to find he r “ through a c qua i nta nc e s or frie nds” if she
re turne d to Hondura s , but she a lso te stifie d tha t she did not know how the y c ould find he r unle ss she d i sc lose d he r ne w loc a tion to pe ople whom he r a b u se rs kne w. She wa s a ble to a void C ardona

for five y e ars a

nd W ue ste r for se ve ra l m onths be fore le aving Hondura s. W e de ny the pe tition a s to Va

re la M artine z ’ s C A T c l a im

for sim ila

r re a sons.

“ Torture m

ust be inflic te d by , at the instiga tion of, or with the

c o nse nt or
a c quie sc e nc e of, a

public offic i a l or othe r pe rson a c ting in a n offic ia l c a

pa c ity .” Diaz-Re y noso v . Barr , 968 F.3d 1070, 1089 (9th C ir. 2020). Just a s the re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the Hondura

n gove rnm e nt ha s be e n una ble or unwilling to prote c t Va

re la M artine z , it a lso doe s not c om p e l the c onc lusion tha

t

3the H ondura n gove rnm e nt ha s be e n “ willfully blind” to the dom e stic viole nc e and
a ssa ults sheha s fa c e d. Id. Fina lly , Va

re la M artine z argue s tha

t he r c a s e should be re m ande d be c a use Matte r of A-B- , 28 I. & N. De c . 307 (A.G. 2021), ha s c ha nge d the sta

nda rd for
e va luating a

pa rtic ula riz e d soc ia l group. B e c a

use the Gove rnm e nt ha s not
c onte ste d on a

ppe a l Va re l a M artine z ’ s c la im

tha t she is a m e m be r of a c ogniz a ble pa rtic u la riz e d soc ia l group, a

nd be c a use the B IA did not re ly

on the “ c om

p le te he lple ssne ss” sta

nda rd for a gove rnm e nt’ s unwillingne ss or ina bility to pre ve nt viole nc e tha

t wa s c a lle d into que stion by A-B- , re m and is unne c e ssa ry . Se e A-B- , 28 I. & N. De c . at 309; se e also Matte r of A-B- , 27 I. & N. De c . 316, 337 (A.G. 2018), ov e rrule d by

A-B- , 28 I. & N. De c . 307. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4