NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS ROBERTO ROJAS

MONDRAGON,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 71554 Agency No. A201

- 240

- 589

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 9, 2020 * * Portland, Oregon Before: BENNETT and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and NAVARRO, ** * District Judge.
Carlos Rojas

- Mondragon , a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal

* 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 Gloria M. Navarro, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

AUG 3 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We ha ve juri sdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)

. We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence

. Zhi v. Holder , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). W e deny the petition.
The BIA denied relief after finding Rojas

- Mondragon did not meet his
b urden to show that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect
him from the private persecution he suffered or fears

. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding. Rojas

- Mondragon did not present evidence which compels the conclusion
that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to control the type of harm
he suffered

. Only one article in the record discusses the conflict between
Hondurans and Nicaraguan refugees

. The article describes rising tensions between
the residents of one Nicaraguan refugee camp and the surrounding Honduran population after one Honduran “detained a refugee in a dispute over firewood.”
The Hondura n police responded to the conflict, and b oth the United Nations and Honduran officials “feel that the problems have been solved.” To the extent any tensions discussed in the article remain, the article does not discuss violence against Nicaraguan refugees on account of their nationality or refugee status

. T he article only describes conflict over resources including firewood, food, and
medicine

.3

The remaining evidence Rojas

- Mondragon offered in support of his petition

— several news articles and a U.S. Sta te Department country report

— indicates that the Honduran government struggles to control private persecution at the hands of organized crime. T he BIA concluded that “the mistreatment the respondent experienced and fears is from private citizens with no ap parent connection to organized crime

. ” The record is devoid of evidence that would compel a different conclusion. Given the lack of evidence germane to Rojas

- Mondragon’s claim, we cannot hold that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclu de” the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to control Rojas

- Mondragon’s alleged persecutors. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B ); INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483

– 84 (1992) . Accordingly, the BIA properly rejected Rojas

- Mondragon’s
claim to relief

. Cf. Bringas

- Rodriguez v. Sessions , 850 F.3d 1051, 1069

– 70 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that an asylum

- seeker bears the burden to show “by a preponderance of evidence, considering all the evidence in the record” that the government of removal is unable or unwilling to control the private persecution alleged)

. PETITION DENIED

.