Jenny Carolina Aguilar-Velasquez petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge's denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Aguilar-Velasquez alleged that she faced persecution by a gang in Honduras. Her claims relied heavily on incidents involving her husband and his family, whom she described as the Guifarro-Figueroa family. She testified that gang members forced her to lie on the ground at gunpoint when she was 17, and that the gang abducted and killed her husband and his brother, later killing another brother-in-law. She also alleged threats against her husband's family and that gang members drove by her mother's house to ask about her whereabouts after her husband's family had moved away. The agency found that these incidents did not constitute past persecution against her personally and that she did not face a well-founded fear of future persecution.
The panel reviewed the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence. First, regarding past persecution, the court acknowledged that harm to close relatives can contribute to a finding of persecution if it is part of a pattern closely tied to the petitioner. However, the court found the record did not compel a conclusion that the deaths of the petitioner's husband and his brothers were tied to her specifically. The gang never physically harmed the petitioner despite her presence during abductions, nor did they specifically threaten her. The gang's interest appeared to be in the land, not the petitioner, as they did not bother other family members while they sold their belongings. The court also found that the gang driving by her mother's house and asking about her did not compel a finding of intent to harm her. Second, regarding future persecution for asylum, the court noted the petitioner bore the burden to show a well-founded fear. The record showed she lived safely in Honduras for two years after leaving the farm and that her mother and children remained unharmed for five years after she left for the U.S. Third, for withholding of removal, the court applied the higher standard of 'more likely than not' and found that since she failed to show a well-founded fear, she could not meet this higher burden. Finally, regarding CAT relief, the court held that evidence of police corruption or failure to investigate specific crimes is insufficient to establish government acquiescence. The petitioner's expert, Dr. Phillips, opined on future harm based on the gang's inquiries and a claim of land inheritance. The court found the agency was not obligated to discuss this report as it was not highly probative or dispositive, particularly since the agency had already found the land inheritance claim not credible and the inquiries did not compel a finding of intent to harm.
The petition is denied, and the BIA's order affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of relief remains in effect. The stay of removal will dissolve upon the issuance of the mandate. The decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's strict application of the 'closely tied' requirement for harm to relatives and clarifies that general country conditions regarding police corruption do not automatically satisfy the acquiescence standard for CAT claims.