Diasis Yamilet Sanchez- Suazo; Luis David Munoz- Sanchez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIASIS YAMILET SANCHEZ-
SUAZO; LUIS DAVID MUNOZ-
SANCHEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1605
Agency Nos.
A201-676-975
A201-676-976
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, HURWITZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Diasis Yamilet Sanchez-Suazo, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing her appeal from an
* 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
NOV 16 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1605
order of an immigration judge denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Sanchez’s son is a
derivative beneficiary of her asylum application. Exercising jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Sanchez
established neither past persecution nor a clear probability of future persecution in
Honduras. Sanchez claims that unknown men obtained photographs of her children
in school, once entered Sanchez’s home to threaten her, and repeatedly threatened
her partner because he refused to help them transport drugs. These threats alone,
however, do not compel a finding of past persecution. See Sharma v. Garland, 9
F.4th 1052, 1060–63 (9th Cir. 2021); Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025,
1028–29 (9th Cir. 2019). Nor do they compel a finding of a clear probability of
future persecution, especially because Sanchez’s partner and daughter remained
safely in Honduras for at least six months after Sanchez fled. See Sharma, 9 F.4th
at 1066 (“The ongoing safety of family members in the petitioner’s native country
undermines a reasonable fear of future persecution.”).
2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Sanchez’s
proposed social group, “immediate family members of truck drivers in Honduras
who refuse to distribute drugs for the drug trafficking cartels,” lacks social
distinction. Although the country reports and testimony document widespread

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1605
violence in Honduras, they do not suggest that families of truck drivers are
“perceived as distinct” by Honduran society. Diaz-Torres v. Barr, 963 F.3d 976,
980 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).
3. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that
Sanchez failed to establish a clear probability of torture by or with the “acquiescence
of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” Zheng v. Ashcroft,
332 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up). “Torture is an extreme form of
cruel and inhuman treatment” that rises above persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(2).
The threats from gang members do not establish past torture or compel a finding of
a likelihood of future torture. Moreover, the country reports document that the
Honduran government is attempting to curb gang violence, and the record does not
compel the conclusion that it would acquiesce to Sanchez’s torture.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --