Andres-Cristobal De Ramon v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 24-162
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRA ANDRES-CRISTOBAL DE No. 24-162 RAMON; et al., Agency Nos. A220-150-893 Petitioners, A220-150-894 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Alejandra Andres-Cristobal De Ramon and her minor daughter, natives and

citizens of Guatemala, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

* 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). protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings. Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition

for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to show they were or would be persecuted on account of their proposed

gender-based particular social groups. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097

(9th Cir. 2011) (an applicant must show that “persecution was or will be on

account of his membership in such group”) (emphasis in original).

Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that they waived review of

the IJ’s determinations that they failed to establish a nexus to their indigenous and

family-based particular social groups or political opinion, so we do not address

these issues. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.

2013).

Because petitioners failed to show any nexus to a protected ground, they also

failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v.

Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and

withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by

2 24-162 or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 24-162