Zamora Vasquez v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 11, 2023
• Docket: 22-1299
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 11 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSUE ZAMORA VASQUEZ, No. 22-1299 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-388-217 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 6, 2023** Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, N.R. SMITH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Josue Zamora Vasquez, native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review

of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming, without

opinion, the decision of the immigration judge (IJ), denying his applications for

* 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). asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s decision

for substantial evidence, Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 891–92 (9th Cir.

2020), and we deny the petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Zamora

failed to meet his burden of establishing asylum or withholding of removal. The IJ

concluded that, even assuming that Zamora were a member of a particular social

group or possessed a political opinion, Zamora’s single incident of past harm did

not rise to the level of persecution.1 See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1063

(9th Cir. 2021) (outlining that “physical violence and resulting serious injuries,

frequency of harm, specific threats combined with confrontation, length and

quality of detention, harm to family and close friends, economic deprivation, and

general societal turmoil” are factors to consider in determining whether claimant

suffered persecution). The IJ also concluded that the harm suffered was not “on

account of” a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th

Cir. 2010). To the contrary, Zamora testified that gang members asked him to join

their gang but said nothing else to him; further, Zamora claimed that he was

1 Zamora’s opening brief contains allegations of harm that were not raised in his asylum application or in his testimony. Because our review is limited to the administrative record, we do not consider these allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2 22-1299 targeted because he hadn’t lived in the district very long and the gang members did

not know him. See id. at 1016 (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by

criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus

to a protected ground.”). Finally, the IJ concluded that Zamora could safely and

reasonably relocate within Honduras, given that he safely relocated with his father

after the incident. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(3), 1208.16(b)(3). Zamora does not

point to any evidence in the record that would “compel[] the conclusion that the

[IJ’s] decision was incorrect.” Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1060 (internal quotation marks

omitted). Accordingly, Zamora’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief, because

Zamora failed to establish it is “more likely than not” he will be tortured if returned

to Honduras. See Velasquez-Samayoa v. Garland, 49 F.4th 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.

2022) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)). Zamora did not suffer past torture, see

Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2015), and he has

not provided any evidence beyond a generalized fear of gang violence that he will

be tortured in Honduras, see Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th

Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (holding that “generalized evidence of violence and crime”

does not establish that it is more likely than not that a petitioner will be tortured).

Finally, the record supports that Zamora could relocate to avoid being tortured.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii) (providing that in assessing CAT relief, the IJ

3 22-1299 should consider “[e]vidence that the applicant could relocate to a part of the

country of removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured”).

PETITION DENIED.

4 22-1299