NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 8 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN MIGUEL LOPEZ-FUENTES, No. 24-5714

Agency No.

Petitioner, A215-564-922 v.

MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2025**

Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER, PAEZ, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Juan Lopez-Fuentes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 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). BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal claims for substantial evidence. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lopez-Fuentes did not make the requisite showing of persecution for asylum and withholding of removal. To be eligible for asylum absent evidence of past persecution, an applicant must establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Id. at 1029. And to be eligible for withholding of removal, an applicant must establish that it is “more likely than not” that he will be subject to future persecution. Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1085–86 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). An applicant who can safely and reasonably relocate within his native country does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2).

Lopez-Fuentes conceded, before the BIA, that he did not suffer past persecution. And the BIA properly concluded that Lopez-Fuentes failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. Lopez-Fuentes testified that his family has safely relocated to a new city, and that he could live with them if he returned to Honduras. Lopez-Fuentes presents evidence of violence and gang activity in Honduras, but “[r]elocation is generally not unreasonable solely because the country at large is subject to generalized violence.” Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 648 (9th Cir. 2021). Nothing in the record indicates that Lopez-Fuentes could

2 24-5714 not safely and reasonably relocate to Honduras and live with his family.

Substantial evidence therefore supports the BIA’s decision to deny Lopez- Fuentes’s application for asylum.1 Because Lopez-Fuentes failed to meet the lower standard for asylum, he necessarily fails to meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).

The petition is DENIED. 1

Lopez-Fuentes also argues that the BIA erred in concluding that “people from small villages that have lived in the United States” is not cognizable as a particular social group. The court need not address this issue, as Lopez-Fuentes’s failure to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution is dispositive of his petition.

3 24-5714