Court Opinion

ID: 9908077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 18:01:27.394903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:50.778396
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             DEC 7 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAYRA ROXANA LICONA                              No. 21-1151
VILLALOBO,
                                                 Agency No. A209-247-476
              Petitioner,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                     Argued and Submitted November 7, 2023
                              Pasadena, California

Before: WALLACE, W. FLETCHER, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Dissent by Judge W. FLETCHER.

      Petitioner Mayra Roxana Licona Villalobo (“Licona”), a native and citizen

of Honduras, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”)

decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

      While Licona was a storeowner in Honduras, she experienced consistent

beatings, sexual assaults, and death threats from gang members extorting her

business. Though the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found her testimony credible, the

BIA and IJ denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT.

We review for substantial evidence factual findings that an applicant has not

established eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022).

      The BIA’s denial of Licona’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal

is supported by substantial evidence. The BIA found that Licona was not

persecuted on account of a protected ground—a necessary element of both asylum

and withholding claims. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A);

Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). The BIA

found that economic gain, rather than a protected ground, motivated the gang

members when Licona testified that they would have sexually assaulted both male

and female business owners. Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 883

(9th Cir. 2021).

      The BIA’s denial of CAT relief was also supported by substantial evidence.

                                         2
The BIA concluded that Licona would not be likely to experience torture upon

return because she could safely relocate in Honduras. Rodriguez Tornes v.

Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 754 (9th Cir. 2021). Additionally, the BIA found that she

could relocate because she had been able to flee her predatory stepfather and she

no longer owns a store. Although Licona asserted that she will be killed for

defying the gangs, her objective evidence before the IJ demonstrated a merely

generalized fear of violence and was not particular to her. See Delgado-Ortiz v.

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Further, Licona’s

predatory stepfather may have had more incentive to seek her out than local

members of a gang who targeted her for payment years ago, so this evidence is

relevant to her concerns.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                         3
                                                                              FILED
Licona, No. 21-1151
                                                                                DEC 7 2023
                                                                           MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                             U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
W. Fletcher, J., dissenting.

          I respectfully disagree with the panel’s conclusion with respect to CAT

relief.

          The BIA concluded that Licona could safely relocate within Honduras

because she had escaped her stepfather in 1994 by moving a few hours away and

because her store no longer exists. Both of the BIA’s reasons are supported by

evidence in the record, but neither is responsive to Licona’s testimony.

          Licona credibly testified that gang members told her that they would kill her

because she had refused to pay their extortion demands. She also testified that she

would be unable to relocate to a safe place because the gangs were “spread all

over.” The country conditions evidence in the record supports her testimony.

          Given that Licona’s credible testimony is not contradicted by anything in the

record, and given that the BIA has provided only irrelevant reasons to discount her

testimony, I would grant the petition with respect to CAT relief.