NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TANIA CAROLINA BARAHONA No. 16-72746
RODAS; et al.,
Agency Nos. A206-908-834
Petitioners, A206-908-835
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Tania Carolina Barahona Rodas and her daughter, natives and citizens of
Honduras, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Jiang v. Holder, 754
F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners concede that Barahona Rodas’ experiences did not rise to the
level of persecution, but fear future harm in Honduras based on two proposed
social groups. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners
failed to establish a likelihood of future persecution by the government of
Honduras or individuals that the government is unable or unwilling to control. See
Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Mashiri v.
Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1119 (9th Cir. 2004) (source of persecution must be the
government or forces that the government is unwilling or unable to control). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
In this case, because petitioners did not establish eligibility for asylum, they
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
2 16-72746
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Honduras. See Garcia-
Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that
petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).
Finally, we reject petitioners’ contentions that the IJ violated their due
process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-72746