Ana Rodriguez-Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 427 F. App'x 618 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA CECILIA RODRIGUEZ-FLORES, No. 09-70739
et al.,
Agency Nos. A099-677-111
Petitioners, A099-677-112
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Ana Cecilia Rodriguez-Flores and her daughter, natives and citizens of
Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th
Cir. 2008), except to the extent deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the
governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th
Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
Rodriguez-Flores contends she suffered past persecution and has a well-
founded fear of future persecution by gangs in Honduras on account of her political
opinion and her membership in a particular social group. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Rodriguez-Flores failed to show past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected
ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992); Parussimova
v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that
a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s
persecution”). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum,
their claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
2 09-70739
In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Rodriguez-
Flores failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not she would be tortured by, or
at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if
returned to Honduras. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Rodriguez-Flores’
CAT claim. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we reject petitioners’ contention that the IJ’s credibility-related
findings deprived them of a fair hearing, because the BIA evaluated their claim
assuming it to be credible. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-70739