Court Opinion

ID: 9840672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 19:01:14.230454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:59:58.224874
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YEIMI ANAVEI ADRIANO-CERNA,                     No. 22-838
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A208-302-873
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                           Submitted September 14, 2023**
                                 Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GOULD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Yeimi Anavei Adriano-Cerna is a native and citizen of Honduras. She

petitions for review of a Bureau of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision

dismissing an appeal from the order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her

applications for asylum, for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

      *
             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 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction to review the BIA

decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

      We review findings of fact for substantial evidence and uphold the agency’s

decision “unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Budiono v. Lynch, 837

F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Where,

as here, the BIA adopts and affirms “the IJ’s decision without adding any

commentary of its own, we treat the IJ’s decision as that of the BIA.” Sinha v.

Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1019–20 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

      1. An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal must show either

that past persecution was “committed by the government or forces the government

is either unable or unwilling to control,” or that future persecution will be

committed by those actors. J.R. v. Barr, 975 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 2020)

(quoting Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 655–56 (9th Cir. 2000)). Substantial

evidence supports the BIA’s holding that Adriano-Cerna did not show sufficient

government involvement in the past persecution that she suffered and did not

establish a reasonable probability of future persecution with government

involvement.

      Adriano-Cerna fears returning to Honduras because she reported her father

to the police for raping her sisters and her niece, and he made threats against her

                                         2                                      22-838
because of her actions. However, the police responded within 30 minutes when

she reported the crime, her father was prosecuted, and is currently in prison. That

does not show inability or unwillingness to fight against the crimes that she claims

were persecution of her.

      Adriano-Cerna also asserts that she fears returning to Honduras because the

father of her children physically and verbally abused her and threatened her life.

But she never reported the abuse to the police. The BIA did not err in holding that

there was no evidence in the record to indicate that the Honduras government

would be “unable or unwilling to” respond to domestic violence against her.

      2. The IJ denied Adriano-Cerna’s CAT claim because she did not show a

likelihood of torture. Adriano-Cerna’s petition for review does not challenge that

finding and we therefore find no error in the agency determination. See Martinez-

Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).

PETITION DENIED.

                                        3                                    22-838