ANGEL PINEDA-BONILLA, AKA Angel Amilcar Pineda-Bonilla v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGEL PINEDA-BONILLA, AKA
Angel Amilcar Pineda-Bonilla,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73530
Agency No. A099-518-669
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 7, 2010
Seattle, Washington
Before: GOODWIN, HAWKINS and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Angel Pineda-Bonilla (“Pineda”), a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum. Pineda claims
membership in “a particular social group” (his full siblings) which suffered
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
persecution by their older half-siblings. The BIA denied the claim for a number of
reasons, including that Pineda failed to establish that his half-siblings were a group
the government was unable or unwilling to control. We deny the petition.
Even assuming the actions and threats by his half-siblings qualify as
persecution, they were perpetrated by private actors unconnected to the government.
See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (random criminal acts
cannot establish basis for persecution); Rodas-Mendoza v. INS, 246 F.3d 1237, 1239-
40 (9th Cir. 2001) (fear of cousin who “is not a government actor or an individual
over whom the government exercises no control” cannot be basis for asylum). Pineda
thus needed to “convincingly establish” that the government was unable or unwilling
to control them. Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006).
However, Pineda never reported any of the incidents of abuse to the authorities.
See Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1078 (9th Cir. 2004) (when persecution is
not by a government actor, the court considers whether an applicant reported incidents
to police because such a report may show governmental inability to control the
actors). Although in some situations, we may excuse an applicant’s failure to seek
protection from governmental authorities, the petitioner bears the burden of proving
eligibility for asylum and must present convincing evidence that reporting the abuse
to authorities would have been futile or dangerous. Ornelas-Chavez, 458 F.3d at 1058

-- 2 of 4 --

1 We note that in his own asylum application, Pineda indicates that Herman had
been arrested before for various other incidents, and thus Herman was not immune
from arrest. Although we may not reach a ground not relied upon by the agency, we
are required to consider the record in its entirety, including evidence that contradicts
the BIA’s conclusions, to determine whether the evidence compels the contrary
conclusion. See Chouchkov v. INS, 220 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, it
does not.
3
(applicant did not report past harm to police because of harassment and mistreatment
by police themselves).
Here, Pineda testified that he did not report the incidents to the police because
the police were corrupt and “can be bought,” his half-brother Herman had “friends in
the police,” and he did not believe the police would do anything because it would be
a “he said, she said” situation. Various news articles about domestic violence in
Honduras were introduced, but these articles also indicate the government and police
are actively working to reduce the problem in the country. Thus, the documentary
evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. Nor does vague testimony about
Herman having “friends” in the police department. 1
Although Pineda may have subjectively believed that it would have been futile
to report the abuse to authorities, the agency was not required simply to accept his
assumptions. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
Evidence consisting principally of speculation about what the police might have done

-- 3 of 4 --

4
and that they “can be” bought is insufficient to compel a conclusion contrary to that
found by the IJ and BIA.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --