DANIA YAMILE MARTINEZ -MARTINEZ and EDUAR YARET RODRIGUEZ -MARTINEZ v. PAMELA BONDI , Attorney General of the United States

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-3281
DANIA Y AMILE M ARTINEZ -M ARTINEZ and
EDUAR Y ARET R ODRIGUEZ -M ARTINEZ ,
Petitioners,
v.
PAMELA BONDI , Attorney General
of the United States,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of Orders of
the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Nos. A209-235-532 & A209-235-533.
____________________
A RGUED M AY 21, 2025 — DECIDED A UGUST 14, 2025
____________________
Before LEE, K OLAR , and M ALDONADO, Circuit Judges.
M ALDONADO, Circuit Judge. In July 2016, Dania Yamile
Martinez-Martinez and her son Eduar Yaret Rodriguez-Mar-
tinez fled Honduras for the United States. She feared becom-
ing the next victim of Celio Rodriguez, the ousted leader of a
land cooperative called La Confianza where she lived. Home-
land Security later discovered that Martinez-Martinez

-- 1 of 10 --

2 No. 24-3281
entered the country illegally and initiated removal proceed-
ings in November 2016. Martinez-Martinez applied for asy-
lum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Con-
vention Against Torture, citing threats from Rodriguez and
his associates.
An immigration judge denied relief, and the Board of Im-
migration Appeals affirmed, finding that Martinez-Martinez
failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of fu-
ture persecution. Martinez-Martinez now challenges the
agency’s future-persecution finding, arguing that the Hondu-
ran government cannot protect her and that internal reloca-
tion is unreasonable. Because substantial evidence supports
the agency’s decision, we deny the petition.
I.
A. Background
Born in 1979 in Tocoa, Honduras, Martinez-Martinez grew
up in a land cooperative where her father farmed African oil
palm. Around 1989, her father and other cooperative mem-
bers were tricked into selling their land in an ill-advised deal.
Stripped of their land and primary source of income, her fam-
ily plunged into poverty. At fourteen years old, Martinez-
Martinez left home to live with her boyfriend, with whom she
would later have four children.
In 2007, drawing on her family’s history of displacement,
Martinez-Martinez joined the Unified Movement of Farmers
of the Aguán (MUCA), a grassroots coalition of former coop-
erative members who believed the land sale had been illegal.
MUCA demanded land reform and staged mass demonstra-
tions that pressured the government to grant the group use of
a vacant parcel, now known as La Confianza, in 2008.

-- 2 of 10 --

No. 24-3281 3
Alongside other MUCA families, Martinez-Martinez relo-
cated there with her children and mother. Together the fami-
lies elected a board of directors, built homes, and cultivated
African palm on the reclaimed land.
In the early years, operations at La Confianza went
smoothly; the cooperative turned a profit and families earned
steady wages from the land. Martinez-Martinez held no lead-
ership role, but worked the fields and regularly attended
community meetings. Things began to unravel in 2015 when
the board—under president Celio Rodriguez—stopped shar-
ing financial records and slashed family earnings. Around the
same time, Rodriguez formed an armed group of men to
guard the plantation. Several MUCA leaders were found
dead under suspicious circumstances, often after questioning
finances or challenging Rodriguez’s authority. One member
was killed while traveling outside the cooperative, a murder
Martinez-Martinez attributes to Rodriguez, whom she ac-
cuses of silencing dissent over embezzlement and the killings
of MUCA members.
The turmoil catalyzed a successful vote to remove Rodri-
guez as president of the board in 2015, though he continued
to live on the plantation. Martinez-Martinez supported the
leadership change and was vocal about her opposition to Ro-
driguez at board meetings, drawing the ire of Rodriguez and
his posse. At one meeting, an armed associate of Rodriguez
made a thinly veiled death threat toward her, warning her to
keep quiet. Associates of Rodriguez would also post outside
Martinez-Martinez’s home to intimidate her, and on one oc-
casion in April 2016, her daughter saw men lurking and peer-
ing through their home’s windows.

-- 3 of 10 --

4 No. 24-3281
Fearing for her life, Martinez-Martinez fled Honduras
with her son Eduar in July 2016. After arriving in the United
States, she learned that both Rodriguez’s successor as board
president and a former MUCA treasurer had been murdered.
She believes they were targeted for trying to expose Rodri-
guez’s embezzlement.
Today, several of Rodriguez’s associates still live in La
Confianza, though some have been arrested by local officials
for crimes committed there. Rodriguez himself, however, re-
mains at large and is wanted by Honduran authorities in con-
nection with at least two murders. One of his most feared en-
forcers, Osvin Caballero, also fled La Confianza but was later
arrested in Mexico, extradited to Honduras, and convicted for
multiple murders.
Although Martinez-Martinez has not been contacted by
Rodriguez or his associates since fleeing Honduras, and her
mother, grandparents, and daughters remain in La Confianza
without incident, she believes she remains a uniquely visible
target. Unlike her family, she publicly opposed Rodriguez at
board meetings and continues to speak out against him in
these immigration proceedings, actions she fears may have
reached him. Nearly a decade later, she remains convinced
that returning to Honduras would expose her to retaliation.
B. Immigration Proceedings
Shortly after arriving in the United States, Martinez-Mar-
tinez and her son were placed in removal proceedings by the
Department of Homeland Security. She conceded removabil-
ity but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and pro-
tection under the Convention Against Torture. At her hearing
before an immigration judge, Martinez-Martinez described

-- 4 of 10 --

No. 24-3281 5
her experience at La Confianza and testified that nowhere in
Honduras was safe for her or her son. She also submitted
country reports from the U.S. State Department and Human
Rights Watch, several news articles, and letters of support
from acquaintances. These sources documented the wide-
spread gang violence, extortion, and corruption that plague
Honduras.
The immigration judge found Martinez-Martinez’s testi-
mony credible but denied her applications. The judge con-
cluded that she did not suffer past persecution and failed to
show a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned to
Honduras. In assessing past persecution, the judge acknowl-
edged that Martinez-Martinez was verbally threatened dur-
ing a board meeting and that her daughter once saw Rodri-
guez’s associates monitoring their home. But he deemed this
evidence insufficient, emphasizing that Martinez-Martinez
was never physically harmed in Honduras.
Turning to future persecution, the judge offered three in-
dependent reasons for rejecting her claim. First, he found that
Martinez-Martinez did not show she would be targeted on ac-
count of a protected ground—race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
Second, he found that, even if she were targeted, she failed to
show that Honduran authorities were unwilling or unable to
protect her. Third, the judge determined that Martinez-Mar-
tinez could reasonably relocate within Honduras if conditions
in La Confianza proved intolerable.
Martinez-Martinez appealed to the Board of Immigration
Appeals, which affirmed the immigration judge’s decision
with little additional reasoning. Although the Board did not
adopt the judge’s findings on her alleged protected status, it

-- 5 of 10 --

6 No. 24-3281
found the other two grounds—government protection and in-
ternal relocation—sufficient to support the denial.
This petition for review followed. Before our court, Mar-
tinez-Martinez expressly waived challenging the agency’s de-
nial of CAT protection and its finding that she did not suffer
past persecution. Her claims for asylum and withholding of
removal therefore rest on two arguments: (1) that Honduran
authorities are unable or unwilling to protect her from threats
by Rodriguez, and (2) that she cannot reasonably relocate
within Honduras. To prevail, she must succeed on both
grounds.
II.
We review the immigration judge’s order as modified by
the Board. Meza v. Garland, 5 F.4th 732, 735 (7th Cir. 2021).
“We consider legal conclusions de novo and factual findings
for ‘substantial evidence.’” Borjas Cruz v. Garland, 96 F.4th
1000, 1004 (7th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). Under the sub-
stantial evidence standard, we assess whether the Board’s de-
cision “is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative
evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Guzman-Gar-
cia v. Garland, 996 F.3d 480, 484 (7th Cir. 2021) (citation omit-
ted). This standard is deferential to the agency, and we will
“reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.”
Id. (citation omitted).
To qualify for asylum, an applicant must show she is “un-
able or unwilling to return” to her home country due to past
persecution or a “well-founded fear” of future persecution on
account of membership in a protected group. Borjas Cruz, 96
F.4th at 1004 (quoting 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)).
The Immigration and Nationality Act does not protect against

-- 6 of 10 --

No. 24-3281 7
purely private persecution; the harm must come from the
government itself or from private actors the government can-
not or will not control. Osorio-Morales v. Garland, 72 F.4th 738,
742 (7th Cir. 2023). Additionally, the persecution must be
linked to one of the protected grounds, which must be “at
least one central reason” for the harm. Shaikh v. Holder, 702
F.3d 897, 901 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). The asylum applicant bears the burden of
establishing that she suffered past persecution or that she has
a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(a).
Statutory withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A) involves the same protected grounds as asy-
lum, but the standard is higher. See Toure v. Holder, 624 F.3d
422, 428 (7th Cir. 2010). To qualify for withholding of removal,
the petitioner must establish that there is a “a substantial risk”
that she will be persecuted if removed from the United States.
Velasquez-Banegas v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 258, 262 (7th Cir. 2017) (ci-
tation omitted). Thus, failing to qualify for asylum means the
petitioner also cannot succeed on a withholding of removal
claim. N.Y.C.C. v. Barr, 930 F.3d 884, 890–91 (7th Cir. 2019).
With those standards in place, we now consider the merits
of Martinez-Martinez’s applications for asylum and with-
holding of removal. She argues that the agency erred in reject-
ing her claim of a well-founded fear of future persecution. The
immigration judge relied on two independent grounds. First,
he concluded that Honduran authorities could and would
protect her from Rodriguez and his associates. Second, he de-
termined that, even if not, Martinez-Martinez could safely re-
locate elsewhere in Honduras. We address each finding in

-- 7 of 10 --

8 No. 24-3281
turn, ultimately concluding that either ground provides a ba-
sis to deny Martinez-Martinez’s petition.
A. Honduras’s ability and willingness to protect
A government is not “unable or unwilling” to protect its
citizens from persecution simply because its efforts are imper-
fect. Osorio-Morales, 72 F.4th at 742. What matters is whether
the government makes a genuine attempt “to control the per-
secutors.” Perez v. Garland, 83 F.4th 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2023) (ci-
tations omitted). Isolated failures do not prove systemic col-
lapse. To establish that a government is truly unable or un-
willing to protect, an applicant must show persistent or “sys-
temic” inaction. Osorio-Morales, 72 F.4th at 743.
We find that the agency presented substantial evidence
that Honduras is both willing and able to control the threat
posed by Rodriguez. The immigration judge acknowledged
that the country conditions evidence Martinez-Martinez sub-
mitted, which focused on events from 2013 and earlier, may
show that the government’s efforts were once flawed. But the
judge gave greater weight to more recent materials, including
a 2018 State Department report that stated regional violence
was “far below its 2012 peak” and highlighted the govern-
ment’s concrete steps to hold offenders accountable. The
judge also pointed to specific efforts at La Confianza, where
authorities investigated crimes, secured convictions, and im-
prisoned one principal perpetrator, Osvin Caballero. And
while Rodriguez remains a fugitive, the Honduran govern-
ment is still pursuing him. Finally, the judge emphasized that
Martinez-Martinez never reported the violence, making it dif-
ficult to assess how the police might have responded.

-- 8 of 10 --

No. 24-3281 9
Martinez-Martinez offers no evidence that compels a con-
trary conclusion. She contends that she should not have been
expected to seek police protection because the police would
have been ineffective. But we have found it “reasonable—
even in cases of extreme violence—to expect asylum seekers
to have sought help from the authorities.” Perez, 83 F.4th at
633 (quoting Osorio-Morales, 72 F.4th at 743). She also stresses
that Rodriguez still remains at large, placing her at continued
risk and showing that the Honduran authorities cannot pro-
tect her. She does not, however, point to any evidence that
Rodriguez is actively seeking her out (or anyone in MUCA for
that matter). In any event, a government’s failure to appre-
hend every criminal does not, by itself, establish that it is un-
able or unwilling to prevent future harm. See Ingmantoro v.
Mukasey, 550 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2008).
B. Relocation within Honduras
Although we need not address Martinez-Martinez’s relo-
cation arguments, given our conclusion that Honduras is able
and willing to protect her, we note that the agency’s relocation
finding is also supported by substantial evidence.
The relevant inquiry is whether she could avoid the feared
harm by relocating within Honduras, and if so, whether it
would be reasonable to expect her to do so. Oryakhil v.
Mukasey, 528 F.3d 993, 998 (7th Cir. 2008). The reasonableness
determination depends on the “the totality of the circum-
stances,” “including the size of the country of nationality ...,
the geographic locus of the alleged persecution, the size, nu-
merosity, and reach of the alleged persecutor, and the appli-
cant’s demonstrated ability to relocate to the United States in
order to apply for asylum.” Mejia v. Bondi, — F.4th —, No. 23-

-- 9 of 10 --

10 No. 24-3281
1508, 2025 WL 1982306, at *6 (7th Cir. July 17, 2025) (quoting
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)).
Martinez-Martinez claims that nowhere in Honduras is
safe while Rodriguez remains at large. The immigration judge
found that belief unreasonable. Her claim relied on a single
incident from over a decade ago, in which a MUCA member
was harmed in a city outside La Confianza. But the judge
found that that victim was targeted because he possessed sen-
sitive information about Rodriguez’s criminal activity. That is
unlike Martinez-Martinez, who admitted she holds no similar
insider information. The judge also noted that several of Mar-
tinez-Martinez’s family members continue to live in La Con-
fianza without incident, suggesting that she could as well. In
short, her assertion that relocation would be unreasonable is
speculative and unsupported by the record. See Pineda-Teruel
v. Garland, 16 F.4th 1216, 1221 (7th Cir. 2021) (“A speculative
fear of future torture that rests on an unproven chain of hy-
potheticals does not satisfy the applicant's burden.”). As such,
nothing in the record compels us to disturb the immigration
judge’s conclusion.
Accordingly, we DENY the petition for review.

-- 10 of 10 --