NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGAR FRANCESCOLY SERRANO- No. 22-879 PORTILLO, Agency No. A216-610-839 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 7, 2023 ** Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Edgar Francescoly Serrano-Portillo (Serrano-Portillo), a native and

citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

* 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). Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. When, as

here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision citing Matter of Burbano, 20

I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A. 1994), and also provides its own review of the

evidence and law, we review both the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s decision. See

Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 2020). Reviewing the

agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de

novo, see Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny

the petition for review.

1. Because Serrano-Portillo failed to exhaust his challenge to the

denial of CAT protection, we deny this portion of the petition. See Santos-

Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1114 (2023); Umana-Escobar v. Garland,

––– F.4th –––, 2023 WL 3606117, at *5 (9th Cir. May 23, 2023).

2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum and

withholding of removal because Serrano-Portillo failed to establish past

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Agencia Técnica de

Investigación Criminal (ATIC) agents alerted Serrano-Portillo that the agency

had received information that a criminal group was plotting to kill him. The

agents advised him to obtain a weapon to protect himself. Even if the agents’

warning can be construed as a threat to Serrano-Portillo’s life from government

officials, there is no other evidence supporting a finding of past persecution.

Serrano-Portillo was not otherwise harmed, threatened, or confronted with

violence following the warning. As the threat itself was not so imminent or “so

2 menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm,” the threat alone does

not compel a finding of past persecution. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d

1025, 1028–29 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.

2000)).

Next, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Serrano-Portillo’s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable.

Serrano-Portillo conceded he was not aware of ATIC agents removing

journalists from their homes, nor could he identify other journalists persecuted

by the Honduran government. And while a 2018 Honduras Human Rights

Report describes harassment and threats against journalists, these few reported

incidents were not attributed to the government. The report further describes

ATIC’s role in investigating human rights violations by the Honduran national

police and the military police, which are turned over to the Public Ministry for

prosecution. While Serrano-Portillo may genuinely fear that the Honduran

police or other government actors would target him for his political reporting,

the record does not establish that his fear is objectively reasonable. See Ahmed

v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007).

PETITION DENIED.

3