RITZA MARILU MARADIAGA-FLORES and J-J-M-M- v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RITZA MARILU MARADIAGA-FLORES
and J-J-M-M-,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71533
Agency Nos. A208-542-439
A208-542-438
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2023**
Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Ritza Marilu Maradiaga-Flores and her minor son, both natives and citizens
of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of their applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
(“CAT”). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and
review questions of law de novo. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F. 3d 1238, 1241
(9th Cir. 2020). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum. Maradiaga-
Flores based her asylum claim on a single incident in 2015, when unknown masked
men—allegedly gang members—stopped her in the street and demanded to know
the location of her children’s father. She told them that she had no contact with the
father since 2011, when he abandoned her and her sons. But the men said they knew
where she lived and threatened to kill her unless she gave them information about
the father’s location. The single death threat that Maradiaga-Flores received is not
sufficient to establish persecution. See Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th
Cir. 2021) (finding that even incidents with actual physical harm do not constitute
persecution without “something more” such as repeated and credible death threats);
Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (two death threats
from unknown hit men were insufficient to establish persecution). Maradiaga-
Flores’s remaining evidence largely centers on general country conditions, but the
record doesn’t compel a finding that she has suffered or will suffer future
persecution.1 Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding of a lack of
1 Maradiaga-Flores raised new arguments that she suffered beating, torture, and
kidnapping, and that she was persecuted because of her pro-union organization
participation for the first time on this appeal. Since we consider only the grounds

-- 2 of 3 --

3
persecution, Maradiaga-Flores’s asylum claim fails, and we do not proceed to the
merits of her proposed social group.
2. “A failure to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to establish
eligibility for asylum therefore necessarily results in a failure to demonstrate
eligibility for withholding of deportation.” Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147,
1150 (9th Cir. 2000). Likewise, because Maradiaga-Flores failed to establish either
past persecution or an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution, she
necessarily falls short for CAT relief. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1067 (9th
Cir. 2021).
PETITION DENIED.
relied upon by the BIA, it falls outside the scope of our review. See Guerra v.
Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020).

-- 3 of 3 --