Meza Vasquez v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 27 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HEYDI GISEL MEZA-VASQUEZ; No. 19-72245 MAURICIO JOSEPH MARTINEZ-MEZA; Agency Nos. DAYANA GISSEL MARTINEZ-MEZA, A206-735-261 A206-735-262 Petitioners, A206-735-263 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. HEYDI GISEL MEZA No. 22-1074 VASQUEZ; DAYANA GISSEL Agency Nos. MARTINEZ MEZA; MAURICIO JOSEPH A206-735-261 MARTINEZ MEZA, A206-735-263 A206-735-262 Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of Orders of the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 16, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.*** Heydi Gisel Meza-Vasquez and her two derivative applicant children, Mauricio Joseph Martinez-Meza and Dayana Gissel Martinez-Meza (together, Petitioners), petition for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioners are citizens of Honduras. They first petition for review of a BIA decision dismissing their appeal from an order of an immigration judge (IJ) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture (CAT); and second petition for review of a BIA decision denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petitions for review. 1. Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s determination that they failed to show that any persecution “was committed by the [Honduran] government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.” Bringas- Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 2 Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010)). Their forfeiture of such an argument is dispositive of their claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013). In any event, substantial evidence—including Meza-Vasquez’s own testimony that the Honduran police acted every time she filed a police report and ultimately arrested one of the individuals responsible for the threats she experienced in Honduras—supports the BIA’s determination. See Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 648 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[A] country’s government is not ‘unable or unwilling’ to control violent nonstate actors when it demonstrates efforts to subdue said groups.” (citation omitted)); cf. Bringas-Rodriguez, 850 F.3d at 1063 (explaining that “evidence of how the police responded to the petitioner’s requests for protection” is relevant to determine whether the government is unable or unwilling to control persecution). 2. Substantial evidence therefore also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners do not qualify for CAT relief, as they failed to demonstrate that a Honduran public official would acquiesce in Meza-Vasquez’s torture. See Umana- Escobar v. …

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