FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 06 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OMAR BONILLA-BANEGAS, AKA Omar No. 12-70661
Marcio Bonilla-Banega,
Agency No. A088-923-340
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and STEEH,** Senior District Judge.
Petitioner Omar Bonilla-Banegas petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of withholding of removal. For the reasons set
forth below, we deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable George Caram Steeh III, Senior District Judge for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
1
Petitioner failed to show by a clear probability that he would be persecuted upon
removal on the basis of his status as a former police officer (which is what he is now),
or based on his political opinion for resisting police corruption. See Garcia v. Holder,
749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014).
1. Petitioner failed to show a nexus between his alleged refusal to accept bribes
and the assaults he suffered, which were as likely to have occurred because of his
membership in police special operations generally. Petitioner claims the two attacks
against him while he was an officer were reprisals for his refusal to be corrupted, but
admits he does not know who the attackers were. There is no evidence linking those
who tried to bribe him to the failed attacks on his life. As the BIA noted, it is just as
likely that members of organized crime, gangs, or others shot at him merely because he
was a police officer carrying out his duties. Given his membership in the elite
COBRAS unit, Petitioner testified, he had dangerous interactions with gang members
and other criminals on a daily basis and routinely participated in missions that involved
gunfights. He has presented no evidence that he was shot because he refused to engage
in corrupt activities or that he would be persecuted if he returns to Honduras.
2. Petitioner testified that he was threatened in an attempt to force him to resign,
which strongly suggests that as a retired officer he would no longer be under threat. He
has not otherwise shown that he faced persecution based on his status as a former
officer. Despite leaving his young daughter, six brothers, two sisters, and his parents in
2
Honduras when he left the police force and came to the United States, there is no
evidence that any of his family members received inquiries as to how to locate him, or
that they were harmed or threatened in any way. Petitioner did not testify that any
other member of his elite COBRA unit was threatened or killed. The facts in this case
are thus markedly different from those presented in Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499
(9th Cir. 2013). There, Madrigal, a former member of the Mexican military, relied on
three post-military incidents to establish past persecution: “the attempts of unknown
individuals to find him after he relocated, the drive-by shooting and the anonymous
threatening note” to his family. Id. at 504. This court held that if Madrigal could
establish that the Los Zetas drug cartel was responsible for the post-military incidents,
that would be sufficient to constitute past persecution. Id. at 504-05. Here, there is no
evidence that Petitioner will be persecuted as a former police officer.
3. Because Petitioner has not shown by a clear probability that he will be
persecuted if removed to Honduras because of his status as a former officer, or based
on his political opinion, we need not address the issue of whether the Honduran
government is unable or unwilling to protect him.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3