NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 22a0455n.06
No. 21-4105
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Nov 10, 2022 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk JIMMY SAGASTUME-HERNANDEZ, ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) APPEALS Respondent ) ) )
Before: McKEAGUE, WHITE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Jimmy Sagastume-Hernandez, a native
and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. Because Sagastume-Hernandez has not shown an entitlement to relief, the petition is
DENIED.
I.
Sagastume-Hernandez entered the United States without immigration documentation in
July 2014. Shortly after, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings
against him. Sagastume-Hernandez conceded his removability on August 11, 2014, and again on
August 10, 2016. He applied for asylum and withholding of removal based on his political
opinion—“[o]pposition to the National Party in Honduras and support[] of the LIBRE Party”—
and his alleged membership in three social groups: (1) “[f]amily members of LIBRE No. 21-4105, Sagastume-Hernandez v. Garland
[Party] candidates running for office”; (2) “[f]amily members of Suyapa Jacqueline [Trejo
Cardon]”—a cousin of Sagastume-Hernandez who successfully ran for mayor as a LIBRE Party
candidate; and (3) “family members of that same [cousin] who publicly helped her campaign.”
AR 99, 118-19. He applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) on the
same grounds.
In February 2019, an immigration judge (IJ) held a hearing on Sagastume-Hernandez’s
applications. Sagastume-Hernandez explained that he has supported the LIBRE Party since 2011.
When asked why, Sagastume-Hernandez responded that “they had a good proposal for the country
to help bring up the economy.” AR 124. Sagastume-Hernandez testified that in 2013, his cousin
Suyapa Jacqueline Trejo Cardon (Cardon) ran for mayor of the Municipality of Macuelizo, in the
Department of Santa Barbara, as the LIBRE Party candidate. She defeated the incumbent mayor,
who was a member of the rival National Party. Sagastume-Hernandez told the IJ that he supported
Cardon during this campaign by “telling people that she was a good candidate,” that “she was
going to help people,” and that “she was going to open new places for jobs.” AR 127.
Sagastume-Hernandez testified that during Cardon’s campaign, he was approached by
“Elsa,” a member of the National Party, who offered him 500 lempiras to vote for the National
Party candidate in the presidential race. He declined the offer and told Elsa that he “was not going
to betray [his] party.” AR 128. According to Sagastume-Hernandez, after Cardon was elected,
members of the National Party harassed her, warning her “that if she didn’t quit the position she
was going to be killed and all her family.” AR 127. These threats led Cardon to step down as
mayor, after which the former mayor reassumed power.
-2- No. 21-4105, Sagastume-Hernandez v. Garland
Sagastume-Hernandez also recounted an incident in March 2014 when he was verbally
threatened by a member of the National Party named “Gido.”1 At the time, Sagastume-Hernandez
worked at Chumbagua, a sugar company, selling food, water, and sodas. Gido approached him at
work and “said that if he would see me again he wouldn’t forgive me.” AR 130.2 Sagastume-
Hernandez testified that he kept working at the sugar company “because [he] needed to,” but was
frightened because Gido was a known drug dealer with a reputation as a “dangerous man” who
“like[d] to kill people.” Id. Sagastume-Hernandez reported the incident to police in Santa Barbara,
but they informed him “[t]hat they couldn’t do anything against [Gido] if they didn’t have any
evidence.” AR 137.
According to Sagastume-Hernandez, he “did not know at the time why [Gido] had
threatened [him].” AR 152. But “a couple of months later, [he] found out that [Gido] [was] one
of the men who approached [his] cousin [Cardon] and told her that she had to resign from the
position [of mayor] or all of her family would be killed.” Id. Sagastume-Hernandez explained,
“When I found out that [Gido] was one of the people who threatened my cousin, . . . I fled
immediately because I was afraid that he would kill me since I am [her] cousin.” Id.
Sagastume-Hernandez testified that he fled Santa Barbara to San Pedro Sula, a city in
Honduras roughly two hours away. He stayed there with his sisters for three months and was not
1 The record reflects three spellings for the individual who threatened Sagastume-Hernandez. He is referred to as “Gido” in the immigration hearing transcript, AR 129, “Gaido” in Sagastume-Hernandez’s written application, AR 151, and “Gaydo” by a Honduran news source, AR 207. Because Sagastume-Hernandez’s brief utilizes the spelling “Gido,” we do the same. 2 Sagastume-Hernandez included the same incident in the addendum to his written application for asylum, explaining that “[i]n March of 2014, about three months before I left Honduras, [Gido] approached me when I was working at Chumbagua and told me that he didn’t want to see me there anymore. He told me that if he saw me there again, he would not pardon me.” AR 151-52.
-3- No. 21-4105, Sagastume-Hernandez v. Garland
verbally or physically threatened. After three months, he passed through Guatemala and Mexico
before arriving in the United States.
Regarding his family remaining in Honduras, Sagastume-Hernandez explained that Cardon
remained in the Department of Santa Barbara. She ran for mayor as a LIBRE Party candidate
again in 2018 and won. His father and sisters also remained in Honduras but relocate occasionally.
Sagastume-Hernandez testified that Gido threatened his father and sisters in Honduras in 2014,
and again in 2016. However, he conceded that no one has ever physically harmed him or his
family members. According to Sagastume-Hernandez, all threats against his family members
ceased in 2016. Further, Sagastume-Hernandez testified that Gido was killed in 2018. He
suspected that drug traffickers committed the murder to “settle some debt.” AR 134.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ denied Sagastume-Hernandez’s petition for asylum
and withholding of removal. Although the IJ accepted Sagastume-Hernandez’s testimony about
Gido as truthful, the IJ concluded that Sagastume-Hernandez failed to establish an appropriate
nexus between Gido’s threat and Sagastume-Hernandez’s political opinion or social groups. The
IJ was “not satisfied that any threat issued to the respondent was because of his political opinion.”
AR 67 (emphasis added). The IJ further found that Sagastume-Hernandez was never physically
harmed in any way, and that his testimony that he was verbally threatened by a drug trafficker on
one occasion failed to rise to the level of past persecution.
Additionally, the IJ noted that Sagastume-Hernandez did not demonstrate an objective
basis for fear of future persecution, given that (1) the only person who threatened Sagastume-
Hernandez—Gido—died in 2018; (2) Cardon was elected mayor under the LIBRE Party platform
a second time in 2018 and has continued to serve as mayor without any threats or harm to her
person; and (3) Sagastume-Hernandez’s father and sisters have remained in Honduras as both
-4- No. 21-4105, Sagastume-Hernandez v. Garland
supporters of the LIBRE Party and family members of Cardon without sustaining any physical
harm, and were only threatened twice, with the last threat coming from the now-deceased Gido in
2016.
Finally, the IJ found that Sagastume-Hernandez could reasonably relocate within
Honduras, since the threat against him came from a now-deceased person in Santa Barbara, and
considering that Sagastume-Hernandez moved two hours away to San Pedro Sula where he lived
for three months without incident.
The IJ also denied the claim for protection under the CAT because there was “no showing
that [Gido] was a governmental actor in any way,” nor that the government of Honduras engages
in or consents to the torture of its citizens based on political party. AR 70.
Sagastume-Hernandez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which
affirmed the IJ’s order of removal. He then brought this petition for review.
II.
When the BIA reviews an IJ’s decision de novo and issues its own separate opinion, we
review the BIA’s opinion as the final agency determination. Guzman-Vazquez v. Barr, 959 F.3d
253, 259 (6th Cir. 2020). But we review the IJ’s decision to the extent the BIA adopts its reasoning.
Id. We defer to an agency’s findings of fact if they are “supported by reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). Such findings are conclusive unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.” Id. (quoting Ben Hamida v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 734, 736 (6th Cir.
2007)). We review questions of law de novo. Id.
To establish an entitlement to asylum, an applicant must show that he or she is “unable or
unwilling” to return to his or her country because of “past persecution or a ‘well-founded fear’ of
-5- No. 21-4105, Sagastume-Hernandez v. Garland
future persecution ‘on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.’” Bonilla-Morales v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1132, 1136 (6th Cir. 2010)
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b) (providing that the burden of proof
is on the applicant to establish refugee status). The applicant must also establish that the alleged
protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for the persecution. Umaña-Ramos
v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667, 671 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)).
To succeed on a withholding claim, an applicant must show that there is a “clear
probability” that he or she will be persecuted if forced to return to his or her country, and that the
persecution would be on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion. Id. at 674; see also Guzman-Vazquez, 959 F.3d at 274 (finding that
withholding applicants “must demonstrate that a protected ground was at least one reason for their
persecution”).
III.
Sagastume-Hernandez contends that his evidence met these thresholds because he
“successfully demonstrated past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of his political opinion and membership in a particular social group.” Petitioner Brief 3.
A. Past Persecution
Sagastume-Hernandez argues that he established proof of threats from members of the
National Party, and that those threats were due to his allegiance to the LIBRE Party and his familial
ties to a LIBRE Party candidate. However, in both his application and at his hearing, Sagastume-
Hernandez only identified one incident with specificity: Gido’s verbal threat made at the
Chumbagua sugar company in March of 2014.
-6- No. 21-4105, Sagastume-Hernandez v. Garland
The record does not conclusively connect this event to Sagastume-Hernandez’s political
opinion or his relationship with Cardon. Sagastume-Hernandez’s written application stated:
“[Gido] approached me when I was working at Chumbagua and told me that he didn’t want to see
me there anymore. He told me that if he saw me there again, he would not pardon me.” AR 151-
52. Sagastume-Hernandez testified to similar effect at his hearing. When asked exactly what Gido
told him, Sagastume-Hernandez answered: “That if he ever saw me again he wouldn’t forgive
me.” AR 123. None of the statements attributable to Gido mention, or even indirectly reference,
Sagastume-Hernandez’s politics or family. When asked how Gido would even know of his
political affiliations, Sagastume-Hernandez answered, “I don’t know how he knew.” AR 138.
Further, in his application, Sagastume-Hernandez wrote that “[he] did not know at the time why
[Gido] had threatened [him].” AR 152. Such confusion indicates that Gido did not mention the
LIBRE Party, National Party, Cardon, or anything related to politics at the time of the
confrontation.
Sagastume-Hernandez speculates that since Gido was one of the men who threatened his
cousin and intimidated her into stepping down as mayor, he must have also targeted Sagastume-
Hernandez over politics. But Sagastume-Hernandez also explained that Gido was the leader of a
group of drug traffickers, and a violent man with a dangerous reputation who “like[d] to kill
people” and “beat his workers.” AR 129-30, 151. This suggests that Gido may have had a different
motivation to threaten Sagastume-Hernandez, separate and apart from his politics. “Asylum is not
available to victims of indiscriminate violence, unless they are singled out on account of a
protected ground.” Bonilla-Morales, 607 F.3d at 1138 (quoting Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d
1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2010)). Here, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Gido’s threat
was based on Sagastume-Hernandez’s political opinion or family, as opposed to Gido’s general
-7- No. 21-4105, Sagastume-Hernandez v. Garland
penchant for violence or his role as a drug trafficker. See Myftari v. Mukasey, 302 F. App’x 401,
408–09 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding that a petitioner failed to establish a nexus between her past
persecution and her political opinion, in part because her assailants did not mention politics, nor
give her any reason to believe they were kidnapping her because of her political associations, and
because there was an alternative explanation for their conduct). We therefore must affirm the
BIA’s decision that Sagastume-Hernandez failed to establish the requisite nexus between a
statutorily protected ground and any past persecution.
Nor do we find persuasive Sagastume-Hernandez’s argument that the “relationship
between the economic and social agendas of the National Party” necessitates a mixed-motive
analysis, and therefore the BIA erred by failing to consider “the relationship between the political
agenda of the National Party and their ulterior motive of seeking revenge against [Sagastume-
Hernandez].” Petitioner Brief 12-13. A mixed-motive analysis still requires the petitioner to
demonstrate that a protected ground motivated the persecution in part. Guzman-Vazquez, 959 F.3d
at 270, 274 (explaining that with respect to asylum claims, “the applicant must establish that race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at
least one central reason for persecuting the applicant,” and that applicants for withholding of
removal must demonstrate that “a protected ground was at least one reason for their persecution”).
Here, the BIA concluded that Sagastume-Hernandez failed to establish any nexus between a
statutorily protected ground and past persecution, and that there was insufficient evidence to prove
Gido’s one-time threat had “any connection to [Sagastume-Hernandez’s] political opinion or his
relationship to his cousin.” AR 4. The evidence adequately supports this conclusion. As discussed,
Sagastume-Hernandez was unable to explain how Gido knew of his political affiliations or family
relationship to Cardon. His own declaration implies that Gido did not refer to either politics or
-8- No. 21-4105, Sagastume-Hernandez v. Garland
family in his threat. And none of the affidavits proffered by Sagastume-Hernandez’s family
members shed light on the motivation behind Gido’s attack; they merely reiterate, in vague terms,
that Sagastume-Hernandez left Honduras because he feared for his life.
Such evidence does not compel the conclusion that Sagastume-Hernandez’s political
beliefs or family ties had a role in motivating Gido’s attack, even under a mixed-motive analysis.
Absent evidence establishing that Gido’s March 2014 threat was motivated, at least in part, by
Sagastume-Hernandez’s politics, the BIA did not err in denying his petition due to lack of nexus.
Further, even assuming that Sagastume-Hernandez established a nexus between Gido’s
2014 threat and a protected ground, the BIA’s conclusion that “the vague threat directed toward
[Sagastume-Hernandez] on a single occasion at work does not establish harm amounting to past
persecution” was not erroneous. AR 4. Persecution within the meaning of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A) entails “more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation,
unaccompanied by any physical punishment, infliction of harm, or significant deprivation of
liberty.” Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384, 390 (6th Cir. 1998). Sagastume-Hernandez does not
explain how his single encounter with Gido, which never escalated beyond a vague verbal threat,
was severe enough to constitute persecution. See Japarkulova v. Holder, 615 F.3d 696, 701 (6th
Cir. 2010) (“In the vast majority of cases, . . . mere threats will not, in and of themselves, compel
a finding of past persecution.” (quoting Boykov v. INS, 109 F.3d 413, 416 (7th Cir. 1997))).
Because the evidence does not conclusively establish past persecution on account of
Sagastume-Hernandez’s political opinion or particular social group, the BIA did not err in denying
this petition on those grounds.
-9- No. 21-4105, Sagastume-Hernandez v. Garland
B. Future Persecution
Nor has Sagastume-Hernandez established a well-founded fear of future persecution
because of his political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Because Sagastume-
Hernandez did not establish past persecution, he must “independently establish a well-founded
fear of future persecution.” Kukalo v. Holder, 744 F.3d 395, 401 (6th Cir. 2011). This can “be
based on either a likelihood of harm specifically targeted at the applicant or a ‘pattern or practice’
of persecuting others similarly situated.” Yu Yun Zhang v. Holder, 702 F.3d 878, 880 (6th Cir.
2012) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(b)(2)(iii)).
Sagastume-Hernandez provides country condition reports and news articles that he claims
“establish[] a pattern or practice in Honduras of members and supporters of minority political
parties being threatened and harassed by members of the National Party.” Petitioner Brief 15. He
also points out that members of the National Party threatened other members of his family to the
point that they frightened his cousin into renouncing her position as mayor.
We agree with the BIA that this fails to satisfy Sagastume-Hernandez’s burden. The only
person to ever threaten him personally—Gido—died in 2018. Sagastume-Hernandez offers no
evidence that anyone else in Honduras intends to do him harm. Further, Sagastume-Hernandez
testified that his father and two sisters, all LIBRE Party supporters, have remained in Honduras
without suffering any threats or harm. By his own admission, all threats against these family
members ceased in 2016. Cardon even ran for mayor as a LIBRE Party candidate in 2018 and
won. She, like Sagastume-Hernandez’s father and sisters, has not been threatened, verbally or
physically, since 2016. That Sagastume-Hernandez’s alleged persecutor is deceased and his
remaining family has not suffered a threat in several years indicates that Sagastume-Hernandez’s
fear of future harm is not objectively reasonable. See Bonilla-Morales, 607 F.3d at 1138 (finding
-10- No. 21-4105, Sagastume-Hernandez v. Garland
that an applicant failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, in part because her
family remained in the country and suffered no mistreatment).
And, as the BIA points out, Sagastume-Hernandez lived for three months without incident
in San Pedro Sula. This suggests safe relocation is possible within his home country. When asked
if there was any place within Honduras that he could safely live, Sagastume-Hernandez replied:
“No, there’s also a lot of crime.” AR 131. But fear of widespread crime does not establish
persecution, and Sagastume-Hernandez did not establish why he would be singled out for
mistreatment among the general population. A petitioner “cannot rely on speculative conclusions
or mere assertions of fear of possible persecution, but instead must offer reasonably specific
information showing a real threat of individual persecution.” Mapouya v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 396,
412 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Sagastume-Hernandez has not shown that he faces an
individualized threat beyond the general threat to the population from “crime.” Cf. Kamara v.
Holder, 362 F. App’x 466, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010) (rejecting a claim of well-founded fear of future
persecution where the petitioner could not establish why the “bad people” running his country
would single him out for harm); Lumaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 574, 578 (6th Cir. 2006) (rejecting
a claim of well-founded fear of future persecution because although a widespread threat of violence
existed in Albania, there was no evidence that individuals were targeted on political grounds).
Accordingly, the record does not compel the conclusion that Sagastume-Hernandez has an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution on account of his political opinion or membership
in a particular social group. Sagastume-Hernandez’s asylum claim fails.
C. Withholding of Removal and CAT Claims
Because Sagastume-Hernandez’s asylum claim fails on the grounds that he did not
establish past or future persecution, and his withholding of removal and CAT claims are based on
-11- No. 21-4105, Sagastume-Hernandez v. Garland
the same evidence, these claims necessarily fail as well. See Sarr v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 354, 361-
62 (6th Cir. 2007) (rejecting a claim for the withholding of removal because the applicant did not
meet the more lenient standard for asylum); see also Guzman-Vazquez, 959 F.3d at 273–74
(discussing why “an alien must meet a higher burden in establishing a right to withholding of
removal than in demonstrating asylum eligibility” (quoting Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396, 401
(6th Cir. 2005))). “An applicant seeking relief under the Convention Against Torture has the
burden of proving that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if removed to the proposed
country.” Berri v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)).
For the same reasons Sagastume-Hernandez failed to demonstrate that persecution on these
grounds was more likely than not, he also fails to demonstrate that torture on these grounds is more
likely than not. See id. at 397-98 (denying relief under the CAT where petitioners based their CAT
claims on the same grounds as their unsuccessful requests for asylum and withholding).
IV.
For the reasons set out above, we deny Sagastume-Hernandez’s petition for review of his
claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
-12-