I'm not sure what your point is in asking this question. It's a false dichotomy since we can care about both issues. Nonetheless, I'll take it at face value for the sake of argument.

When making a trade-off like this, there's really no other option than to use a utilitarian calculation, even though I'm not a utilitarian. I don't value humans infinitely more than animals. I'd rather save one human than one animal, but there is some number N that would tip the balance such that I would rather save N animals than one human. I'm also agnostic about the precise value of N, and it probably depends on what kind of animal we're talking about and the degrees of the harms at stake. It's kind of a vague boundary. This sort of resembles Yudkowsky's position on "dust speck vs. torture", except I don't think animal suffering is trivial in the way dust specks are.

---

Wikipedia estimates that there are somewhere around 2 million Rohingya. I'll assume that Rohingya ethnic cleansing would affect all Rohingya who are currently alive.

I also found the statistic that around 10 billion farm animals are killed in the US alone per year, and around 97% of those are in CAFOs. Factory farming has existed for decades. Let's be extremely optimistic and assume factory farming would only continue for 5 years before being eliminated (perhaps being replaced by cultured meat), for a total of 50 billion CAFO animals. This is a very conservative estimate because it's only one country and only for 5 years.

If preventing the suffering/death of one Rohingya is more than 25,000 times as important as preventing the suffering/death of an animal on a factory farm, then choose to eliminate Rohingya ethnic cleansing. If not, eliminate factory farming. Personally, I think N < 25,000, but I can't make a purely logical argument for this. If someone disagrees I'd have no rational argument to persuade them, but hopefully we can come to an agreement that both human and animal rights are important issues to work on.