Court Opinion

ID: 9963643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 00:00:45.388813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:55.287915
License: Public Domain

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

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                  ____________                                             Fifth Circuit

                                                                                         FILED
                                   No. 23-60453                                      April 25, 2024
                                 Summary Calendar                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                 ____________                                            Clerk

Corina Paola Zelaya-Flores; Andrea Paola Rosales-
Zelaya; 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.
Case: 23-60453        Document: 42-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/25/2024

                                 No. 23-60453

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, Zelaya-
Flores’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 Munoz-
Granados, 958 F.3d at 407; Qorane, 919 F.3d at 910.

                                       2
Case: 23-60453          Document: 42-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/25/2024

                                   No. 23-60453

          Absent a showing of past persecution, the alien may establish a well-
founded 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 government-
sponsored, 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.

                                         3