Henriquez Reyes v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-3882
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEYLI JOSSELYN HENRIQUEZ No. 24-3882 REYES; SAMANTA RUBI PONCE Agency Nos. HENRIQUEZ; GREYLIN LINET PONCE A220-593-620 HENRIQUEZ, A208-949-187 A208-949-186 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 20, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Lead Petitioner Keyli Henriquez Reyes and her two minor daughters are

natives and citizens of Honduras. They seek review of a decision of the Board of

* 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). Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which dismissed their appeal of an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and the IJ’s resulting

decision ordering their removal. We review the agency’s factual findings for

substantial evidence. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). When, as

here, “the BIA issues its own decision but adopts particular parts of the IJ’s

reasoning,” we examine both “‘the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA’ and

‘the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s oral decision in support of those reasons.’” Id.

(quoting Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014)). We deny the petition.

1. The agency denied asylum and withholding of removal on two grounds.

a. First, Lead Petitioner failed to “demonstrate that the government of

Honduras was or would be unable or unwilling to protect her from the private

actors she fears.” See Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 750–51 (9th

Cir. 2021) (describing the unable-or-unwilling-to-control element of an asylum

claim); Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining the

relationship between the elements of claims for asylum and claims for withholding

of removal). The agency determined that Lead Petitioner neither reported the

incidents at issue to the Honduran police nor demonstrated that filing such a report

would have been futile. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination.

The agency permissibly concluded that Lead Petitioner’s subjective belief

2 24-3882 that the police would not help her does not suffice to show that the Honduran

government would be unwilling or unable protect her. See Castro-Perez v.

Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). The agency also relied on a 2021

report regarding human rights in Honduras, which stated that Honduran law

criminalizes all forms of rape and which detailed efforts to open additional centers

allowing women to report crimes. Lead Petitioner correctly points out that the

report also states, among other things, that the law criminalizing rape is “not

effectively enforced.” See Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1072

(9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (recognizing the distinction between “a country’s

enactment of remedial laws and the eradication of persecutory practices”). But that

evidence, without more, does not compel us to reach a conclusion contrary to the

one reached by the agency in this case. See Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d

1062, 1064–65 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that a country’s imperfect efforts to

“curb violence against women” suggested that the petitioner “could have obtained

help”); Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 648 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[T]he possibility of

drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an

administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”

(quoting Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011))).

b. Second, the agency concluded that Lead Petitioner failed to show that it

would be unsafe or unreasonable for her to relocate to a different part of Honduras

3 24-3882 to avoid future harm. See Akosung v. Barr, 970 F.3d 1095, 1101–02 (9th Cir.

2020) (explaining the “relocation” factor). That determination is supported by

substantial evidence. After her uncle was killed in 2015, Lead Petitioner was able

to relocate to a distant town with her maternal grandparents—one of whom still

lives in that town—for six months, during which time she was not harmed. See

Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1267 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting the petitioner’s

argument regarding relocation when the petitioners had previously “relocated to

Dhaka and lived there without incident”).1

2. For reasons similar to those discussed above, the agency permissibly

determined that Lead Petitioner failed to show that she is more likely than not to be

tortured with government acquiescence should she be returned to Honduras. See

Aleman-Belloso v. Bondi, 128 F.4th 1031, 1044–45 (9th Cir. 2024) (stating legal

standard); see also Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014)

(explaining that “evidence that a government has been generally ineffective in

preventing or investigating criminal activities” does not, on its own, “raise an

inference that public officials are likely to acquiesce in torture”); Aguilar Fermin v.

Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 893 (9th Cir. 2020) (denying petition to review denial of CAT

1 Because Lead Petitioner failed to present it to the agency, we do not consider her assertion that she no longer has the means to relocate because her financial situation has changed. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Before a petitioner can raise an argument on appeal, the petitioner must first raise the issue before the BIA or IJ.”).

4 24-3882 relief when “substantial evidence support[ed] the conclusion that [the petitioner]

could internally relocate within Mexico”).

PETITION DENIED.2

2 The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

5 24-3882