N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KAR EN NINOSKA ULLOA-ANTUNEZ; ESTEFAN ALEJANDR

A ULLOAANTUNEZ, AKA Este fani Ulloa -Antune z , AKA Este fany Ulloa -Antune z , AKA Este fany Ale ja ndra Ulloa -Antune z , Pe t i tione rs,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-70995 Age n c y Nos. A202-078-665

A202-078-666
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 itte d

M ay 16, 2019 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia
B e fore : WALLAC E , IKUTA, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED M AY 21 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 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).Kare n Ninoska Ulloa -Antune z and he r da ughte r, Este fan Ale

ja ndra Ulloa
Antune z , nat ive s and c i tiz e ns of Hondura s, pe tition for re v ie w of a n orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (B IA) dism issing the ir a ppe a l of a n orde r of an Im m i gra tion Judge(IJ), whic h de nie d the ir c la im s for a sy lum , withholding of
re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (C AT). W e have jurisdic tion ba se d on 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd de ny the pe tition. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t pe titione rs a

re not
e ntitle d to a sy lum be c a

use the y fa ile d to e s ta blish tha t a ny ha rm the y suffe re d in Hondura s wa s or would be on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. Se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1101(a )(42); Ze t ino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ An a lie n’ s de sire to be fre e from

ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim i na ls m otiva

te d by the ft or ra

ndom viole nc e by

ga ng m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a

prote c te d ground.” ). Furthe r, a lthough the

IJ found Ulloa -Antune z to be c re dible , tha t c re dibility

finding doe s not e ntitle pe t itione rs to re lie f be c a use he r te stim o ny

fa ils to de m o nstra

te tha t the y satisfy the re quire m e nts for a sy lum
. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de c ision tha

t pe titione rs a

re not
e ntitle d to withholding of re m ova l be c a

use the y have not shown tha

t the ir live s or fre e dom would be thre at e ne d in Hondura s be c a u se of a prote c te d ground. S

e e 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3); 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.16(b). For tha t re a son, the B IA’ s e rror in
2a

pply ing the “ one c e ntra l re a son” sta nda rd to the que stion of ne xus in pe titione rs’ withholding of rem o v a l c la im s, se e Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 359 (9th C ir. 2017), wa s ha

rm le ss. Pe titione rs do not c ha lle n ge the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t the y are ine l igible for C AT re lie f an d the re fore wa i ve any argum e nt re ga

rding C AT. Se e Martine z -Se rrano v . I.N

.S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996). M o re ove r, be c a use pe t itione rs do not ide ntify anything in the re c ord showing tha

t the IJ fa ile d to e v a luat e any

e vide nc e or te stim ony , de m onstra te d c ultura l bia s , or m isa

pplie d the l aw, pe titione rs’ c la im tha t the IJ viola

te d the ir due proc e s s rights is me ritle ss. The B IA de c ision wa s suffic ie ntly re a sone d a

nd de ta ile d for our re vie w, a nd
re m and for furthe r e xpla

nation is not wa

rra nte d. Se e Lope

z v . Ashc roft , 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th C ir. 2004). Fina lly , the notic e to a

ppe ar file d by

the De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

nd Se c urity
wa s a de quate to ve st jurisdic tion in the re m ova l proc e e d ing in theim m igrat ion judge
. K aringithi v . W

hitak e r , 913 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th C ir. 2019). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3