Deisy Ordonez-Godoy v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEISY YAQUELIN ORDONEZ-GODOY No. 17-71840 and CALEB JOEL SAUCEDA-ORDONEZ, Agency Nos. A206-843-750 Petitioners, A206-843-751 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 11, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: ROGERS,** BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Deisy Ordonez-Godoy, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the BIA’s decision upholding the IJ’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable John M. Rogers, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Ordonez-Godoy also claims that the IJ and BIA denied her due process. Caleb Joel Sauceda-Ordonez, Ordonez-Godoy’s minor son, is a derivative beneficiary of her claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Ordonez-Godoy’s application for asylum. “In order to reverse the BIA, we must determine ‘that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it—and also compels the further conclusion’ that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief,” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)), but here the record does not compel reversal. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ordonez-Godoy did not suffer past persecution. Ordonez- Godoy was never physically harmed or directly threatened by the Figueroas. Ordonez-Godoy credibly testified to threats against her husband by the Figueroas, but during her only direct interaction with the Figueroas—when an armed group of gang members came to her home shortly after her husband fled Honduras—a gang member told her he was friends with her father and expressed no interest in harming her. Ordonez-Godoy remained in the country for nearly two years following the incident without harm. Absent a showing of past persecution, Ordonez-Godoy cannot benefit from a presumption of a fear of future persecution, and substantial evidence supports the 2 17-71840 BIA’s determination that Ordonez-Godoy did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. First, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ordonez-Godoy is unlikely to be persecuted based on her relationship with her husband’s politically active family. During Ordonez-Godoy’s single direct encounter with the Figueroas they expressed no desire to harm her even though they were aware that she was living with her husband’s family; she lived in her husband’s family’s home for nearly two more years without incident; and there is no evidence that anyone in Ordonez-Godoy’s hometown has been specifically targeted because of his or her relationship with the Sauceda-Velasquez family. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ordonez-Godoy ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals