NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS ROBERTO ROJASMONDRAGON, 

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 APPEALS
2

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and 

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction 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). We deny the petition. 

The BIA denied relief after finding Rojas-Mondragon did not meet his 

burden 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 Honduran police responded to the conflict, and both 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. The 

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. State Department country report—

indicates that the Honduran government struggles to control private persecution at 

the hands of organized crime. The BIA concluded that “the mistreatment the 

respondent experienced and fears is from private citizens with no apparent 

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 conclude” 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.