Medina-Gomez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 4, 2025
• Docket: 23-4116
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 4 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NAUN GABRIEL MEDINA- No. 23-4116 GOMEZ; JOSUE GABRIEL MEDINA- Agency Nos. URBINA, A220-490-455 A220-490-456 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 1, 2025** Portland, Oregon

Before: BYBEE, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Petitioners Naun Gabriel Medina-Gomez and Josue Gabriel Medina-Urbina,1

natives and citizens of Honduras, seek review of a decision by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of

their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction

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

When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law, “our review

is limited to the BIA’s decision.” Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th

Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). If the BIA incorporates

the IJ’s reasoning and conclusions into its own decision, we may also look to the IJ’s

decision “as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion[s].” Shrestha v.

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213

F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000)). Within this framework, we review for substantial

evidence the factual findings underlying the BIA’s denial of relief, Plancarte

Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022), and review de novo due

process claims, Reyes-Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003).

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Medina-Gomez

failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected

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

1 Medina-Gomez is the lead petitioner in this case. Medina-Urbina is Medina- Gomez’s minor son. Medina-Urbina seeks relief from removal as a derivative beneficiary of his father.

2 23-4116 (“For both asylum and withholding claims, a petitioner must prove a causal nexus

between one of her statutorily protected characteristics and either her past harm or

her objectively tenable fear of future harm.”).

Medina-Gomez, who proceeded pro se before the IJ, testified that in 2019,

unidentified gang members approached him while he was at a field playing soccer

with friends. They grabbed him by the back, punched him, and told him “don’t mess

with the maras.” They then took out a pistol and fired two shots toward his feet.

When he did not react, they put the pistol next to his ear and fired two more times.

Medina-Gomez was “traumatized” by the shooting and his hearing was affected for

approximately four months. Although Medina-Gomez did not leave Honduras until

2021, he received no additional threats from gang members.2

When asked why he thought the gang attacked him, Medina-Gomez stated, “I

don’t know, but you know, perhaps it’s because years before, the death of my

brother, and then I—the family of the mother of my child.” Medina-Gomez

explained that in 2014, gang members killed his brother because his brother owed

the gang money. Medina-Gomez then stated that his “wife’s family also was trying

to escape.” Medina-Gomez did not know whether they owed the gang money.

2 Medina-Gomez also testified that one of his brothers fled Honduras and that, after the brother fled, gang members visited the family home, asked where his brother was, and acted “insulting” toward his mother. No family currently living in Honduras has been threatened or harmed.

3 23-4116 Medina-Gomez also testified that he never owed the gang any money. When asked

again why he thought the gang targeted him, Medina-Gomez stated, “Their motives

I wouldn’t know. Like I said before, that’s probably coming from something way

back. That’s the only thing I could say. I couldn’t find any justification for why

they would do that.”

Based on this testimony, the IJ considered whether Medina-Gomez had met

his burden of establishing past persecution or a well-founded fear of future

persecution on account of his membership in a family-based particular social group.

It concluded he had not, and the BIA affirmed. Substantial evidence supports this

conclusion, given there is no evidence in the record that the gang members who

attacked Medina-Gomez were aware of his brother’s identity. Approximately five

years had passed since his brother’s murder, and the only statement the gang

members made to Medina-Gomez was, “don’t mess with the maras.” Furthermore,

Medina-Gomez himself stated at least twice that he did not know why the gang

targeted him.

2. The IJ did not violate Medina-Gomez’s right to due process by preventing

him from providing testimony or by failing to adequately develop the record on

whether gang members targeted him on account of his membership in a family-based

particular social group. See Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1226 (9th Cir.

2021) (holding that if a respondent is pro se, an IJ must “scrupulously and

4 23-4116 conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant facts”).

The record shows that the IJ asked Medina-Gomez several questions about

the gang’s motives for targeting him, and Medina-Gomez was unable to explain why

he thought the gang was motivated by his familial associations. See id. (noting that

once a pro se petitioner’s testimony established there was no basis for relief, “there

was nothing left for the IJ to do”). Furthermore, although the hearing transcript

shows that the IJ interrupted Medina-Gomez at various places during his testimony,

nothing in the transcript indicates that the IJ “prevented him from providing relevant

testimony.” Rather, the transcript shows that the IJ provided Medina-Gomez an

opportunity to share the details of his claims, took steps to make sure he understood

his testimony, and assisted Medina-Gomez in fleshing out details by asking follow-

up questions.

PETITION DENIED.

5 23-4116