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

DENNIS GEOVANNY PADILLA FAJAR DO, AKA DENNIS GEOVANNY M AR TINEZ SANDOVAL, Pe titione r,
v. LOR ETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t
. No. 14-73695 Age n c y No. A046-967-458
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 5, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, TYM KOVIC H * * , a nd M . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s. Pe titione r De nnis Ge o va

nny Pa d illa Fa j ardo se e ks re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a l s ’ de nia l of withholding of re m ova l a nd re lie f unde r the 

# FIL ED
M AY 11 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Tim othy

M . Ty m kovic h , C hie f Judge for the Te nth C irc uit C ourt of Appe a ls, sitting by de signa tion.C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT). Exe rc ising jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C
.

§ 1252, we DENY his pe tition for re vie w. Fa ja rdo is a na t ive and c itiz e n of Hondura s. He e nte re d the Unite d State s a s
a la wful pe rm ane n t re side nt in 2000. In 2011, the De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

n d Se c urity issue d a Notic e to Appe ar be fore the im m igra tion c ourt. The Notic e
c ha rge d him with re m ova

b ility unde r se c tion 237(a )(2)(A)(iii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C
. § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii), a s a

n a lie n c onvic t e d of a

n a ggrava te d fe lony
. An im m igra tion judgeissue d a

n orde r of re m ova l a ga inst Fa ja rdo, a nd he wa s re m ove d from the Unite d State s in 2011. Fa ja rdo unla w fully re -e nte re d the Unite d State s in 2013. B orde r Pa trol
a ppre h e n de d him

and re i nsta

t e d the 2011 orde r of re m ova l. In re sponse to the
re insta te m e nt, Fa

ja rdo e xpre sse d a

fe ar of re turning to Hondura s . The Unite d Sta t e s C itiz e nship a

nd Im m igra tion Se rvic e s Asy lum Offic e inte rvie w e d Fa

j ardo
and de te rm ine d t

ha t he ha d a

re a sona ble fe ar of pe rse c ution in Hondura s . The USC IS re fe rre d

Fa ja rdo’ s c a se to the im

m igra tion c ourt. In Oc tobe r 2013, proc e e ding pro se , Fa ja rdo subm itte d a

n a pplic a tion for withholding of
re m ova l a nd prote c tion unde r C AT. He ba se d his c la i m s on his se x ua l orie ntation
and HIV-positive

sta tus. Fa ja rdo m a de two pe rse c ution c l a im s. First, he c la im e d
an e x -boy frie nd, a

drug de a l e r, inte nde d to kill him be c a use Fa j ardo ha d give n him 2 2HIV. Fa

ja rdo c la im s he wa s be a te n a fte r his boy frie nd disc o ve re d Fa j ardo ha d give n him HIV. Fa ja rdo be lie ve d the polic e would a llow him to be ha rm e d, a nd that the re wa s nowhe re in Hondura s he c ould re loc a te sa fe l y be c a use of his e xboy frie nd’ s m any

c onne c tions. Se c ond, Fa ja rdo c la im e d tha

t he wa s ta

rge te d for
e xtortion a

nd ha ra ssm e nt on a c c ount of his se xua l orie n ta tion. He te stifie d tha t he ha d be e n be a t e n by

ga ngs who use d a

nti-ga y slurs during the a tta c ks. The IJ c onc l ude d

tha t the first c la im

did not wa

rra nt re lie f be c a

use any
a tta c k s by the e x-boy frie nd we re m otiva te d by pe rsona l re ve nge . The IJ c onc lude d the s e c ond c l a im

a lso did not wa

rra nt re lie f: [I] t is c l ear t o m e t ha t the ga ngs did not se e k h im out to m istre a t him o n a c c ount o f his be ing g ay . Rat h e r, the y sought him out a s the c rim ina ls that t he y are , l ook i n g f

o r vulne ra ble vic tim s. . . . The fa c t that the se ga ngs ultim at e ly use e pithe ts and othe r anti-ga y lan g ua ge is n ot t anta

m ount to a s howing that the y have sought him out to punish him on a c c ount of his be ing a

ga y pe rson. Ac c ordingly , the IJ de nie d Fa ja rdo’ s a pplic a t ion for withholding of re m ova l a nd C AT prote c tion. The B IA subse que n tly dism isse d his a

ppe a l , a gre e ing with the IJ’ s c onc l usion tha

t the a tta c k s we re m otiva

te d by pe rsona l re ve n ge and a

de sire for e c onom ic ga i n. It found tha t Fa ja rdo’ s se x ua l orie ntat ion the re fore wa s not a
c e ntra l re a s on for his m istre a tm e nt.

3 3W e re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s de c ision for substa ntia l e vide nc e . “ [O] ur re vie w of B IA de c isions is highly

de fe re n tia l ; we m ay

re v e rse only if the e vide n c e in the
re c o rd c om

pe ls a c ontra ry re sult.” Parussimov

a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 738 (9th C ir. 2009). First, the B IA found Fa

ja rdo fa ile d to m e e t

his burde n of e sta

blishing pa st pe rse c ution or a

n obje c tive risk of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. Fa

ja rdo te s tifie d tha

t his boy frie nd atta c ke d him only out of a de sire for
re ve nge . W e hav e he ld tha t atta c ks m otiva

te d by pe rsona l ve nde tta s are not pe rse c ution a

nd c a nnot support c la i m s for withholding of re m ova l. Se e MolinaMorale s v . IN S , 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th C ir. 2001). The re c o rd supports the IJ’ s
c onc lusion on this c la im
. Ne xt, Fa ja rdo a lle ge d tha

t he wa s m i stre a te d by

ga ngs be c a use of his se xua l orie ntation. Unde r the “ one c e ntra l re a son” sta nda rd artic ulate d by

the 2005 R

EAL ID Ac t, Pub. L. No. 109–13, div. B , 119 Sta t. 231, a m otive is one c e ntra l re a son

4 4for pe rse c ution “ if the pe rse c utor would not ha v e ha rm e d the a pplic a n t if suc h
m otive did not e xist.” Parussimov a , 555 F.3d a

t 741. 1 As we e xpla ine d: A c e ntra l re a son— one t

ha t i s “ pr i m ary ,” “ e sse ntia l,” o r “ princ ipa l”

—

re pre se nts m ore t

ha n a m e re “ p art” of a pe rse c utor’ s m o tiva

tion. . . . * * *

. . . A “ c e ntra l” re a son i s a re a son of prim ary im porta nc e to the pe rse c utors, one that is e sse n t ia l to the ir de c ision to a c t. In othe r words, a m otive is a “ c e ntra l re a s o n ” if the pe rsec u tor would not hav e ha rm e d the a

pplic ant if suc h m otive did n o t e xist. Like wise , a m o t i v e is a “ c e ntra l re a son ” i f that m otive , s ta nding a lone , would have le d the pe rse c utor to h a

rm th e applic a

nt. As note d a

bove , pe rse c ution m ay be c a

use d by m ore tha

n one c e ntra l re a son, and an a sy lum ap pl ic ant ne e d n ot p rove whic h re a son wa s dom ina nt. Ne ve rthe le ss, to de m o nstra te th a t a prote c te d ground w a s “ a t le a st one c e ntra l re a son” for pe rse c ution, an a pplic a nt m ust prove that suc h ground wa s a c a u se of the pe rse c utors’ a c ts.

1 The statute provides: The burden of proof is o n the applicant to establish that the applicant is a ref

ugee, within the m eaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. T o establish that the applicant i s a ref ugee within the m eaning of s uch section, the applicant m ust establish that r ace, religion, nationality , m e m be r s h i p in a particular social g r o u p , o r political opinion was or will be at least one central reason f or persecuting the applicant. 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (em

phasis added).

5 5Id. a t 740–41 (inte rna l c ita tion om itte d). The IJ c onc l ude d

the ga ngs’ a tta c ks we re drive n by an e c onom ic m otive , ra the r tha n Fa ja rdo’ s se xua l orie ntation. The re c o rd supports the IJ’ s c o nc lusion that Fa ja rdo’ s se xua l orie ntation wa s not a c e ntra l re a son for the a tta c ks, a nd it doe s not c om

pe l a c ontra ry re sult. Fa

ja rdo’ s fam ily

owne d a m arke t a nd wa s known to ha

ve fina nc ia l re sourc e s. The IJ found tha t the ga ngs ta rge te d Fa ja rdo not be c a use he wa s ga

y , but be c a

use the y be lie ve d he wa s a

vulne ra ble vic tim
. Hondura n ga ngs ta rge t “ pe rsons from e ve ry wa l k of life , ga y , stra i ght, re l igious, irre ligious, pe rsons of e ve ry ra c e .” And e v e n though the ga ng m e m b e rs use d a

ntiga y slurs in e xtorting Fa

ja rdo, the IJ de te rm ine d, “ [i] t doe s not a ppe ar to m e tha

t [se xua l orie ntation] is one of the c e ntra l re a s ons for his m istre a tm e nt.” Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of Fa

j ardo’ s C AT
c la im be c a use he fa ile d to show it is m ore like l y tha

n not tha t he will be torture d by or with the c onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt upon his re turn to Hondura s. Se e Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). Fa ja rdo’ s
argum e nts ba se d

on suppositions a

b out the possible c ha i n of e ve nts tha t m ight ta ke pla c e in Hondura s do not show tha t he m ore like ly

tha n not will be

torture d whe n he re turns the re . S

e e Solando v . Holde r , 359 F. App’ x. 872, 874 (9th C ir. 2009)

6 6(stating the Hondura n gove rnm e nt doe s not a c quie sc e in the torture of ga y m e n). Substa ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord supports this c onc lusion. W e a lso re

je c t Fa ja rdo’ s c onte ntions tha

t the a ge nc y

fa ile d to re vie w the
e vide nc e or othe rwise d e prive d him of due proc e ss. The a g e nc y did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny i ng his m otion to re ope n. Appe lla nt’ s m o t ion for a nam e c ha nge is de nie d. PETITION FOR

R EVIEW

IS DENIED.

7 7