Amaya Hernandez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 10, 2025
• Docket: 23-2158
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YESSICA YISEL AMAYA No. 23-2158 HERNANDEZ; ANDREA SOLASH Agency Nos. AMAYA HERNANDEZ, A215-912-358 A215-912-359 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 6, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, CALLAHAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Yessica Yisel Amaya Hernandez (“Amaya”) and her minor child, Andrea

* 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). Solash Amaya Hernandez,1 natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of

a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal from

an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Exercising

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Amaya did

not establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal because she did not

demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The single

death threat that Amaya received does not compel a finding of past persecution. Only

in “certain extreme cases” have we “held that repeated and especially menacing

death threats can constitute a primary part of a past persecution claim, particularly

where those threats are combined with confrontation or other mistreatment.” Lim v.

INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000).

In the absence of past persecution, Amaya was not entitled to a presumption

of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d

1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Instead, she was required to prove that her fear was “both

subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d

1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007). “The objective component is more demanding and

1 Although Andrea filed her own application for relief, her claims are entirely based on Amaya’s experiences.

2 23-2158 requires credible, direct, and specific evidence” that an applicant “faces an

individualized risk of persecution or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution

against similarly situated individuals.” Id. (cleaned up). Amaya testified that she

fears if she returns to Honduras, the people who threatened her “could do something

to me, or to my daughter.” Such “vague and conclusory allegations of fear” of

returning to Honduras “are clearly insufficient to support a finding of a well-founded

fear of future persecution.” Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th

Cir. 2006). 2 Nor does the country conditions evidence, although documenting

widespread crime, compel a conclusion of an individualized risk of future harm.

2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief.

To obtain CAT protection, an applicant must “establish that it is more likely than

not that he or she would be tortured if removed.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Past

torture “is ordinarily the principal factor” in determining a likelihood of future

torture, Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005), and Amaya did not

present evidence of past torture. Amaya argues that the country conditions evidence,

which corroborates her “assertion of widespread violence and lawlessness,” satisfies

her burden of proof. But “generalized evidence of violence and crime” does not meet

her burden. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).

2 Amaya also testified that a cousin was killed by gang members upon returning from the U.S. five years prior. But she did not expand upon this statement in a way that compelled a finding of a risk of future harm to her.

3 23-2158 Nor does the record compel a finding of government acquiescence in future

torture. “[E]vidence that a government has been generally ineffective in preventing

or investigating criminal activities” does not “raise an inference that public officials

are likely to acquiesce in torture, absent evidence of corruption or other inability or

unwillingness to oppose criminal organizations.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d

1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). The country conditions evidence indicates that Honduran

law prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and that

government officials investigate reports of such behavior.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. The stay of removal, Dkt. 3, shall

dissolve on the issuance of the mandate.

4 23-2158