Josue Zamora Vasquez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSUE ZAMORA VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1299
Agency No.
A205-388-217
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 6, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, N.R. SMITH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Josue Zamora Vasquez, native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review
of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming, without
opinion, the decision of the immigration judge (IJ), denying his applications for
* 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
DEC 11 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 22-1299
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s decision
for substantial evidence, Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 891–92 (9th Cir.
2020), and we deny the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Zamora
failed to meet his burden of establishing asylum or withholding of removal. The IJ
concluded that, even assuming that Zamora were a member of a particular social
group or possessed a political opinion, Zamora’s single incident of past harm did
not rise to the level of persecution.1 See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1063
(9th Cir. 2021) (outlining that “physical violence and resulting serious injuries,
frequency of harm, specific threats combined with confrontation, length and
quality of detention, harm to family and close friends, economic deprivation, and
general societal turmoil” are factors to consider in determining whether claimant
suffered persecution). The IJ also concluded that the harm suffered was not “on
account of” a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th
Cir. 2010). To the contrary, Zamora testified that gang members asked him to join
their gang but said nothing else to him; further, Zamora claimed that he was
1 Zamora’s opening brief contains allegations of harm that were not raised in his
asylum application or in his testimony. Because our review is limited to the
administrative record, we do not consider these allegations raised for the first time
on appeal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

-- 2 of 4 --

3 22-1299
targeted because he hadn’t lived in the district very long and the gang members did
not know him. See id. at 1016 (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by
criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus
to a protected ground.”). Finally, the IJ concluded that Zamora could safely and
reasonably relocate within Honduras, given that he safely relocated with his father
after the incident. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(3), 1208.16(b)(3). Zamora does not
point to any evidence in the record that would “compel[] the conclusion that the
[IJ’s] decision was incorrect.” Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1060 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Accordingly, Zamora’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief, because
Zamora failed to establish it is “more likely than not” he will be tortured if returned
to Honduras. See Velasquez-Samayoa v. Garland, 49 F.4th 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.
2022) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)). Zamora did not suffer past torture, see
Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2015), and he has
not provided any evidence beyond a generalized fear of gang violence that he will
be tortured in Honduras, see Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th
Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (holding that “generalized evidence of violence and crime”
does not establish that it is more likely than not that a petitioner will be tortured).
Finally, the record supports that Zamora could relocate to avoid being tortured.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii) (providing that in assessing CAT relief, the IJ

-- 3 of 4 --

4 22-1299
should consider “[e]vidence that the applicant could relocate to a part of the
country of removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured”).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --