FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RODOLFO BELLO MIRANDA, No. 19-72747 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-923-496 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 3, 2021** Seattle, Washington Before: BOGGS,*** TASHIMA, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. Rodolfo Bello Miranda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board), dismissing his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. appeal of a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ), who denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. 1. The Board’s conclusion that the treatment Miranda suffered did not rise to the level of persecution is not supported by substantial evidence. “Death threats alone can constitute persecution, and ‘[v]iolence directed against . . . family members provides support for a claim of persecution and in some instances is sufficient to establish persecution.’” Kaur v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 1216, 1227 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1074–75 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted)). After Molina killed Miranda’s brother and Miranda filed a complaint against Molina, Miranda was threatened with the death of one of his children or relatives if he continued with the complaint. The following day, Molina sent two men to Miranda’s mother-in-law’s store to tell Miranda that if Molina ended up in jail, they would kill Miranda. Later that evening, two people came to Miranda’s home and again threatened to kill him. These “repeated,” “menacing death threats” are sufficient to establish persecution, particularly because the death threats were “combined with confrontation.” Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000). 2 Nonetheless, as the IJ and BIA found, Miranda has not met his burden of establishing that the government was “‘unable or unwilling to control’” the persecutors. Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010)). Miranda and his mother filed complaints against Molina with the district attorney, who opened a criminal case and indicated that she was willing to continue with the case. The evidence thus does not compel the conclusion that the BIA erred in finding Miranda failed to establish eligibility for asylum. See Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that “we may only reverse the agency’s determination where ‘the evidence compels a contrary conclusion from that adopted …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals