United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60453

Summary Calendar

____________

Corina Paola Zelaya-Flores; Andrea Paola RosalesZelaya; Victor Fernando Rosales-Zelaya, 

Petitioners, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency Nos. A208 926 099, 

A208 926 100, A208 926 101

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Corina Paolo Zelaya-Flores, Andrea Paola Rosales-Zelaya, and Victor 

Fernando Rosales-Zelaya, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for 

review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding 

the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 25, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60453 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024
No. 23-60453

2

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s decision and 

consider the immigration judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the 

BIA. Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 406 (5th Cir. 2020).

The BIA’s factual determination that an individual is not eligible for 

asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection is reviewed under the 

substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 

2006). Under that standard, a petitioner must show that “the evidence is so 

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” 

Id.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the 

petitioners’ past harm did not rise to the level of persecution for purposes of 

asylum and withholding of removal. “Persecution is an extreme concept that 

does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” 

Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 406 (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Threats that are nonspecific or lacking in immediacy are 

insufficient to constitute persecution. Id. at 407; Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 

904, 910 (5th Cir. 2019).

The petitioners were not physically harmed in Honduras. While a 

gang member threatened to kill the petitioners because his advances were 

refused, he did not know where they lived, and his threats and harassment 

ceased when he did not know their whereabouts. Additionally, ZelayaFlores’s ex-partner, the father of the other petitioners, expressed fear for the 

petitioners’ safety given his involvement in drug trafficking, but no one 

related to his drug trafficking ever threatened or harmed the petitioners. The 

threats experienced by the petitioners lacked immediacy, and the record does 

not compel the conclusion that they amounted to persecution. See MunozGranados, 958 F.3d at 407; Qorane, 919 F.3d at 910.

Case: 23-60453 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2024
No. 23-60453

3

Absent a showing of past persecution, the alien may establish a wellfounded fear of future persecution by showing a subjective fear of persecution 

that is also objectively reasonable. Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 407. Where, 

as here, the alleged persecutor is not a government or governmentsponsored, an alien seeking to establish a well-founded fear of persecution 

has the burden of showing that it is unreasonable for her to relocate within 

her home country to avoid persecution. Id.; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii),

(b)(3).

In determining that the petitioners failed to show that internal 

relocation would be unreasonable, the BIA reasoned that the petitioners had 

family members who continued to reside in other cities in Honduras without 

issue. The petitioners have not shown that the evidence compels a contrary 

conclusion. See Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 407-08; Cruz v. Barr, 929 F.3d 

304, 309-10 (5th Cir. 2019). Because the petitioners have failed to 

demonstrate eligibility for asylum, they have also failed to satisfy their burden 

for withholding of removal. See Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 408.

The petitioners also challenge the denial of protection under the 

CAT, but the Government objects that their challenge is unexhausted under 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Because we agree that the issue is unexhausted, we 

decline to reach it. 

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 23-60453 Document: 42-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/25/2024