Fanis Yanes Canales v. U.S. Attorney General

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: July 9, 2026
• Docket: 25-12485
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12485 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 07/09/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12485 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

FANIS ARELY YANES CANALES, HELSIN ARIEL MARTINEZ-YANES, Petitioners, versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A245-394-584 ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-12485 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 07/09/2026 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12485

Fanis Yanes Canales, a native and citizen of Honduras, peti- tions, on behalf of herself and her son, for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals final order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). The Board affirmed that Yanes Canales was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because she did not estab- lish that Honduras was unable or unwilling to protect her from fu- ture persecution. Yanes Canales argues that the Board failed to give reasoned consideration to her country condition evidence, which she alleges showed that the Honduran government was unable to adequately protect her from her abusive former domestic partner. We deny the petition. We review the decision of the Board, except to the extent that it expressly adopted or agreed with the immigration judge’s decision. Jathursan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 17 F.4th 1365, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and must affirm if the findings are “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. (cita- tion and internal quotation marks omitted). We will reverse “only if the record compels reversal, and the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is insufficient to justify rever- sal.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We review claims of legal error de novo. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). USCA11 Case: 25-12485 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 07/09/2026 Page: 3 of 4

25-12485 Opinion of the Court 3

We cannot say that the Board failed to give reasoned consid- eration to Yanes Canales’ arguments and evidence. See Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 874-75 (11th Cir. 2018), overruled in part on other grounds by Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 419-23 & n.2 (2023). The Board’s decision gives no indication that it “cherry-picked” or otherwise ignored certain country condition evidence. Instead, its decision suggests that it considered, as the im- migration judge did, the country condition evidence and found that that evidence did not prove that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect Yanes Canales. See Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Where ... the [Immigra- tion Judge] has given reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings, we will not require that it address specifi- cally each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented.”) (quotation marks omitted). The immigration judge engaged with Yanes Canales’ coun- try condition evidence and found that, although Honduras does not always effectively enforce its domestic violence laws, the evi- dence did not prove that Honduras is unwilling or incapable of do- ing so. The immigration judge found that “perfect protection is not required,” and that no country can guarantee its citizens complete safety from violence at the hands of private actors. The immigra- tion judge found that Yanes Canales had not proved that the Hon- duran government was unable or unwilling to protect her, and the Board found no clear error with that finding. Both the immigration judge and the Board acknowledged Yanes Canales’ alleged fear of reporting her abuser to Honduran authorities. USCA11 Case: 25-12485 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 07/09/2026 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-12485

The Board’s decision reflects reasoned consideration. It acknowledged that although Honduras “is not always successful in enforcing its laws, it has demonstrated a willingness to protect women and victims of familial violence.” It acknowledged that Ya- nes Canales never reported the abuse to Honduran officials. Yet it found that Honduras has laws to address the abuse Yanes Canales suffered and that those laws are enforced, however imperfectly. On this record, we cannot say that the Board failed to consider Yanes Canales’ evidence and arguments. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. To es- tablish eligibility for asylum, the petitioner bears the burden of proving past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecu- tion. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006). To establish persecution by a private actor, an applicant for asylum must prove that her “home country is unable or unwilling to pro- tect” her. Ayala, 605 F.3d at 950. The record supports a finding that, although enforcement needs substantial improvement, Honduras has adopted and enforced serious criminal penalties for abusers and rapists. Yanes Canales testified that she never reported any abuse to Honduran authorities. The record does not compel reversal of the finding that she failed to prove that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect her. See Jathursan, 17 F.4th at 1372. And Yanes Canales’ failure to establish eligibility for asylum means that she is also ineligible for withholding of removal. See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009). We DENY the petition.