N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT STELLA M OUDOYAN, AKA Ste lla B ovo, M ELINA B OVO, a nd M AR T INO B OVO, Pe t i tione rs, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-70020 Age n c y Nos. A099-061-381, A099-061-382, A099-061-383 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 Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 6, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, M c KEOW

N, a nd PAR KER , Jr., * * C irc uit Judge s. Ste lla M oudoy an, on be ha lf of he rse lf a nd he r two c hildre n, M e lina and M artino B ovo, se e ks re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” )



# F IL ED NOV 25 2019 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 Honora

ble B arrington D. Pa

rke r, Jr., Unite d State s C irc u i t Judge for the Se c o nd C irc uit, sitting by de s igna tion.dism issa l of he r a ppe a l from

an Im m igrat ion Judge ’ s fina l orde r of re m ova l. W e re vie w the B IA’ s fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e v ide nc e , Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C ir. 2019), a nd de ny the pe tition for re vie w . The B IA found tha

t a n Ita lia n m a fia sy ndic ate ’ s four se pa

rate thre ats to M oudoy an a

nd he r c hildre n we re ne ithe r e xplic it, ove rt, nor im plie d, a nd we re c om bine d with no other insta

nc e s of ha

rm or viole nc e tha

t would c a

use the m to am ount to pa s t pe rse c ution— e v e n whe n c onside re d c um u lative l y . It found tha

t M oudoy an’ s fe ar of future pe rse c ution wa s too spe c ulative and not obje c tive ly re a s ona ble , in pa rt be c a use she provide d no e vide n c e that he r husba nd ha d in fa c t c oope ra t e d with Ita lia

n a uthoritie s a ga inst them a fia . The B IA note d tha t the Ita lia

n gove rnm e nt ha d

be e n m aking progre ss in disrupting orga niz e d c rim e , a

nd tha t M oudoy an ha d not shown re loc ation within Ita ly to be unre a s ona

ble . The re c ord e vide nc e doe s not c o m pe l a c ontra ry c onc lusion a s to pa st pe rse c ution. Se e id. ; Pe dro-Mate o v . IN S , 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th C ir. 2000). “ In c e rta in e xtre m e c a se s,” this C ourt ha s he ld tha t “ re pe ate d

and e spe c ia lly

m e na c ing de ath thre ats c an c onstitute a prim ary

pa rt of a pa st pe rse c ution c la im , pa rtic ula rly whe re those thre ats a

re c om b ine d with c onfronta

t ion or othe r m istre atm e nt.” Lim v
. IN S , 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th C i r. 2000) (c iting Re y e s-Gue rre r o v . IN

S , 192 F.3d 1241, 1243–46 (9th C ir. 1999); De l C arme n Molina v . IN

S , 170 F.3d 1247, 1249 2(9th C ir. 1999)). B ut without ac c om pa ny ing phy sic a l ha

rm s, thre ats “ c onstitute pa st pe rse c ution in only

a sm a ll c ate gory

of c a se s , a

n d only whe n the thre at s a

re so m e na c ing a s to c a

use signific a

nt a c tua l ‘ suffe ring or ha

rm .’ ” Id. (c iting Sangha v
. IN S , 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th C ir. 1997)). M oudoy an de sc ribe s fe e lings of fe ar, inc luding sha k ing, tre m

bling, a nd be ing “ a fra id of [he r] own sha dow” in the wak e of the thre at s, but shedoe s not de sc ribe “ signific ant a c tua l suffe ring or ha rm .” W e do not dism

iss M oudoy an’ s fe e l ings—

we a c knowle dge tha

t a thre at from

m e m be rs of a n orga niz e d c rim e fam ily is a se rious form

of intimidation. B ut a

pe titione r’ s de s c ription of thre ats a lone and he r subje c tive fe ar a s soc iate d with the m is ge ne ra lly

insuffic ie nt to c arry he r burde n to e sta

b l ish pa s t pe rse c ution. Se e id. (“ Flipping the burde n of proof e ve ry tim e an a sy l um

a pplic ant c la im e d tha

t he ha d be e n thre ate ne d would unduly ha ndc uff” the gove rnm e nt.). M oudoy an a lle ge s no othe r phy s ic a l ha rm , c onfronta tion, or mistre atm e nt on thepa rt of the m a fia . C

f . N ahrv ani v . Gonzale

s , 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th C ir. 2005); Marc os v . Gonzale s , 410 F.3d 1112, 1119 (9th C ir. 2005); C

anale s-Vargas v . Gonzale

s , 441 F.3d 739, 741–44 (9th C ir. 2006). The B IA’ s finding tha t the m a fia ’ s c onfronta

tion with M artino in a public pa rk wa s not e ve n a

n “ im p lie d” thre at wa s inc o rre c t . Give n the c onte xt a nd the 3thre e pre vious thre ats, the m a fia ’ s inte ntions in tha t inte ra c tion we re c le ar. B ut e ve n ta ke n a s le g itim ate , the four ve ile d, non-e xplic it, c onditional thre ats, a bse nt any othe r harm , we re not e xtre m e e nough to c om pe l a finding of pa st pe rse c ution in the fa c e of this C ourt’ s pre c e de nt. Nor doe s the re c ord c om

pe l a finding tha

t M oudoy an e sta

blishe d a n obje c tive ly

re a sona b l e fe ar of future pe rse c ution. 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(i). This c om pone nt re quire s “ c re dible , dire c t , a nd spe c ific e vide n c e . ” Me nde z-Gutie rre

z v . Gonzale z , 444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th C ir. 2006). M oudoy an provide d e xpe rt te stim ony tha t the m a fia

ha d c om m itte d re ve nge killings aga inst c onfirm e d gove rnm e nt inform a

nts a nd the ir fam ily

m e m b e rs in the pa st, but ne ithe r M oudoy an nor the e xpe rt c ould c onfirm tha t the trigge ring oc c urre nc e for suc h killings had oc c urre d: tha t M oudoy an’ s form e r husba n d, Ange lo B ovo, ha d in fa c t c oope ra t e d with a

uthoritie s. M oudoy an a

rgue s tha t e ve n if B o vo ne ve r c oope ra te d, but only c onside re d it, them a fia

m ight none the le ss kill B ovo’ s fam ily to de t e r othe r would-be inform ants from c oope ra ting in the

future . B ut she de sc ribe d only four ve i le d thre at s, e a c h

c onditione d on the fa c t of B ovo’ s c oope ra tion with a uthoritie s, a

nd provide d no dire c t or spe c ific e vide nc e tha t the m a fia

e ve r kille d form e r m e m

be rs or the ir fam ilie s upon m e re c o nside ration of c o o pe ration. As a re sult, a l though theC ourt a c knowle d ge s M oudoy an’ s subje c t ive fe ars, it c annot 4find tha

t the e vide nc e she pre s e nte d c om p e l le d the B IA to find diffe re ntly a s to the obje c tive c o m

pone nt. W e find tha

t the re c ord doe s not c om pe l findings of pa st pe rse c ution or a re a s ona ble fe ar of future pe rse c ution, so we ne e d not re a c h whe the r re loc at ion within Ita ly

would be unre a sona

ble . 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). M oudoy an fa ils to m ake the showing re quire d for a sy lum , so she a lso fa i ls to m e e t the m ore stringe nt “ c le ar proba

bility ” sta nda rd tha t gove rns witholding of re m o va l. Se e Ze haty e v . Gonzale

s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C i r. 2006); 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(b). M oudoy an did not re que st re vie w of the B IA’ s de nia l of he r a pplic ation for prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture , so she wa ive d tha t c la i m . Se e Arme n te ro v . IN

S , 412 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ Fa ilure to ra ise an argum e nt in a

n ope n ing brie f c onstitute s wa i ve r, . . .” ).

PE T IT IO N DE NIE D .

5