N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R ONALD FR

ANK AQUINO-M EJIC O, Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-71410 Age n c y No. A088-933-500
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 11, 2020 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : B YB EE a

n d VANDYKE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C ARDONE, * ** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r R ona ld Aquino-M e jic o, a native and c i tiz e n of Pe ru, pe t itions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de c ision (1) a ffirm i ng the 

# FIL ED JUN 11 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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).

* * * The Honora

ble Kathle e n C ardone , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.Im

m i gration Judge ’ s (IJ) de nia l of Aquino’ s a pplic ation for withholding of
re m ova l (withholding), a

nd (2) de ny ing Aquino’ s m otion to re ope n proc e e d ings. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with the fa c t s, we will not re c i te the m he re . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny the pe tition for re v ie w.

“ Whe re , a s he re , the B IA a gre e s with theIJ de c ision a n d a lso a dds its own
re a s oning, we re vie wthe de c i sion of the B IA and those pa rts of the IJ’ s de c ision upon whic h it re lie s.” Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1027–28 (9th C ir. 2019) (c ita

tion omitte d). W e re vie w de nia ls of withholding “ for substa ntia l
e vide nc e an d will uphold a de nia l supporte d by

re a sona ble , substa

ntia l , a nd probat ive e vide nc e on the re c ord c onside re d a s a whole .” Ling Huang v
. Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th C ir. 2014) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). A de nia l of a m otion to re ope n is re vie we d for a buse of disc re t ion a

nd m ay only be re ve rse d if it is “ arbitra

ry , irrationa l, or c ontra

ry to la w.” Bonilla v . Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th C i r. 2016) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). 1. To qua lify

for withholding, a

pe titione r m

u st show tha

t “ it is m ore like ly tha n not tha t the pe titione r would be subje c t to pe rse c ution on a c c ount of [a ] prote c te d ground[] ” if re m ove d to his c ountry of origin. Tamang v . Holde r , 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th C ir. 2010) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). A pe titione r c an c arry this burde n

in two wa

y s. First, he c an show tha t he suffe re d a c tua l pa st
2pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground, whic h le a d s to a re butta ble pre s um ption tha t he will suffe r pe rse c ution if re turne d to his c ountry of origin. Se e Lolong v . Gonzale

s , 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th C i r. 2007) (e n ba nc ); s e e also 8 C .F.R . § 208.13(b)(1). Se c ond, he c an show tha t he ha s a we l l-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ut ion tha

t “ is both subje c t ive ly

ge nuine and obje c tive ly

re a sona ble .” Lolong , 484 F.3d a

t 1178. Furthe r, to susta in a c la im for withholding, a

pe titione r m ust show tha

t his a lle ge d pe rse c utor is “ a gove rnm e nt offic ia l or individua ls the gove rnm e nt is una

ble or unwilling to c o ntrol.” Santos-Le mus v . Muk a se y , 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th C ir. 2008), abrogate d on othe r grounds by He n rique z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ). He re , the B IA c onc lude d tha t (1) Aquino did not e

xpe rie nc e pa st pe rse c ution
and (2) Aquino doe s not ha ve an obje c tive ly

re a sona ble fe ar of future pe rse c ution by e i the r a gove rnm e n t offic ia l or a

n e ntity the gove rnm e nt is unwilling or una ble to c o ntrol. B oth c onc lusions a re supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . Aquino wa s only pe rsona lly t

hre ate n e d by

Shining Pa

t h m e m b e rs on one oc c a sion, a

nd he wa s ne ve r phy sic a lly

ha rm e d. This a lone is insuffic ie nt to c onstitute pa st pe rse c ution. Se e Hox ha v
. Ashc roft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th C ir. 2003) (holding tha t unfulfille d thre ats of viole nc e “ c onstitute ha ra ssm e nt rathe r tha

n pe rse c ution” ). And though Aquino a

lle ge s tha t Shining Pa

th will se e k to ha

rm him if he re turns to
3Pe ru, he ha s not shown tha t the Pe ruvia

n gove rnm e nt is unwilling or una b le to c ontrol tha

t group. Thus, substa

ntia l e vide n c e supports the de nia l of Aquino’ s c la im for withholding. 2. The B IA m ay

re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings if thepe titione r pre s e nts ne w e vide nc e tha

t “ is m ate ria l a

nd wa s not a

va ila ble and c o uld not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d or pre se nte d at the form e r he a ring.” 8 C .F.R
. § 1003.2(c )(1). To susta in a m otion to re ope n, the e vide nc e m ust ra ise “ a

prim a fa c ie c a se for the
re lie f sought.” N

ajmabadi v
. Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting I.N .S. v . Dohe rty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)). He re , the B IA c onc lude d tha t the e vide nc e doe s not a

m o unt to a

prim a fa c ie
c a se for re lie f. Substa

n t ia l e vide nc e supports this c onc lusion. If a nything, thene w c ountry c ondition e vide nc e de m onstra t e s tha t Shining Pa

th pre se nts a

le sse r thre at tha n it did pre viously . And the e vide nc e of re c e nt viole n c e a ga inst Aquino’ s fathe r doe s not ne gate the B IA’ s pre vious finding tha t the Pe ruvia

n gove rnm e nt would be willing a nd a ble to prote c t

Aquino from

ha rm . Alte rnative ly , substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t the ne w e vide nc e c o uld ha

ve be e n disc ove re d a

nd pre se nte d at a prior he aring. Aquino le arne d tha

t Shining Pa

th a ssa ulte d his fa

the r in Se pte m

be r 2016. And m any

of the
c ountry c onditions re

p orts he offe rs we re publishe d in 2014, 2015, a nd 2016.
4Thus, this e vide nc e wa s a va ila b le to Aquino a

t the tim e of his Ja

nua ry 2017 he aring be fore the IJ. And de spite Aquino’ s argum e nts to thec ontra ry , be c a use the B IA did not e xplic i tly

qua lify or lim it the Ja

n ua ry 2017 he aring to a

spe c ific purpose , Aquino wa s e ntitle d to bring the ne w e vide nc e to the IJ’ s atte ntion a t tha t he aring. Se e Matte r of Pate l , 16 I. & N. De c . 600, 601 (B .I.A. 1978). Thus, theB IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Aquino’ s m otion to
re ope n . PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

5