Orellana-Carbajal v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: 24-895
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 5 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEXANDRA BEATRIZ ORELLANA- No. 24-895 CARBAJAL; BLANCA ROSA Agency Nos. SANCHEZ-ORELLANA; GUILLERMO A220-376-965 JOSE SANCHEZ-ORELLANA, A220-376-963 A220-376-964 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 3, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: CLIFTON, IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, 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). Alexandra Beatriz Orellana-Carbajal,1 a native and citizen of Honduras,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

affirming the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

petition for review.

First, Orellana-Carbajal failed to show past persecution on account of a

protected ground. None of the incidents described by Orellana-Carbajal in her

declaration involved physical violence or a direct threat to Orellana-Carbajal. See

Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019); Sharma v.

Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2021). Second, substantial evidence

supports the agency’s determination that Orellana-Carbajal lacks an objectively

reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution. See Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1065.

The record lacks evidence that any perpetrators knew of Orellana-Carbajal or were

looking for her, and her family has remained in Honduras without harm.

Moreover, the agency adequately considered the record evidence about general

threats to environmental groups. This generalized evidence of threats to

1 Orellana-Carbajal’s minor children are derivative beneficiaries of her asylum application. 2 environmental activists does not establish that Orellana-Carbajal faced an

individualized risk of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); Hoque v.

Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1190, 1197–98 (9th Cir. 2004). Because Orellana-Carbajal has

not established past persecution and the evidence does not compel the conclusion

that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution, we deny her petition as to

asylum and withholding of removal.2 See Gonzalez-Lara v. Garland, 104 F.4th

1109, 1116 (9th Cir. 2024); Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir.

2021) (explaining that withholding of removal’s clear probability standard “is a

more stringent burden of proof” than asylum’s well-founded fear standard).

Because Orellana-Carbajal has not established past persecution and the evidence

does not compel the conclusion that she has a well-founded fear of future

persecution, we need not address the other elements of her asylum or withholding

claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Orellana-Carbajal failed to show she would “more likely than not” be tortured

upon removal to Honduras because her fear of torture is merely speculative.

2 Because Orellana-Carbajal failed to present a pattern or practice theory to the IJ, the BIA did not err in concluding that she had failed to exhaust any pattern or practice claim. Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019). We therefore decline to address whether Orellana-Carbajal’s pattern or practice claim has merit. 3 Garcia, 988 F.3d at 1148. Because the evidence does not compel the conclusion

that Orellana-Carbajal would face a particularized and non-speculative risk of

torture upon her return to Honduras, we deny the petition as to CAT relief. Park v.

Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023).

PETITION DENIED.