Jose Antonio Villeda Miranda v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANTONIO VILLEDA MIRANDA, et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72637
Agency Nos. A095-129-475
A208-574-875
A208-574-876
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 12, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and REISS,*** District Judge.
Petitioner Jose Antonio Villeda Miranda (“Petitioner Jose Villeda”) and two
of his minor sons (collectively, “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Honduras,
* 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).
*** The Honorable Christina Reiss, United States District Judge for the
District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of withholding of removal. The
BIA held that the harm suffered by Petitioners did not rise to the level of past
persecution and they failed to sustain their burden of showing it would not be
reasonable for them to relocate within Honduras. We conclude the BIA’s findings
are supported by substantial evidence, Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th
Cir. 2021), and deny the petition.
Petitioner Jose Villeda has entered the United States on five prior occasions
and was removed each time. On April 30, 2016, he and his sons sought entry into
the United States and were placed into removal proceedings. Petitioners filed
applications for asylum and withholding of removal. On August 17, 2018, the IJ
found the one-year bar precluded consideration of Petitioners’ asylum claims. On
the merits, the IJ denied withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and entered a removal order. Petitioners
appealed only the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal. The BIA dismissed their
appeal.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those
necessary to decide the petition. Petitioners claim denial of withholding of
removal was not supported by substantial evidence because on September 22,
2014, Petitioner Jose Villeda discovered an unknown young man attempting to

-- 2 of 4 --

3
rape the eleven-year-old daughter of his domestic partner. The assailant fled the
scene, and Petitioner Jose Villeda followed him. The assailant threw rocks at
Petitioner Jose Villeda and approximately three struck him. He was rendered
unconscious, treated at a clinic, and experienced temporary vision loss.
Thereafter, members of the gang to which the assailant belonged came to
Petitioner Jose Villeda’s house and threatened to kill him and his children.
Petitioner Jose Villeda reported the attempted rape and rock-throwing incident to
the police, who refused to intervene. He believes the gang that threatened him was
MS-13 but conceded he did not know the identity or affiliation of the gang
members. Petitioners left Honduras in November 2014 and lived in Mexico prior
to their arrival in the United States. They have family members in Honduras who
remain unharmed.
The record does not compel a conclusion that Petitioners’ alleged harm rises
to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“Persecution . . . is ‘an extreme concept that does not include every sort
of treatment our society regards as offensive.’”) (citation omitted); Sharma, 9 F.4th
at 1061–62 (holding that “an isolated incident” generally does not rise to the level
of persecution); Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 647 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining
that “[u]nfulfilled threats are very rarely sufficient to rise to the level of
persecution” and that although petitioner’s father was threatened, “no harm ever

-- 3 of 4 --

4
came to his father, mother, or siblings”). Because the BIA correctly concluded that
Petitioners did not suffer past persecution, it properly placed the burden on them to
establish that it would not be reasonable for them to relocate within Honduras. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3)(i) (“In cases in which the applicant has not established
past persecution, the applicant shall bear the burden of establishing that it would
not be reasonable for him or her to relocate, unless the persecutor is a government
or is government-sponsored.”). The BIA’s determination that Petitioners failed to
sustain their burden is supported by substantial evidence.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --