Artemisa Lopez Ramirez v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 5, 2025
• Docket: 19-72979
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 5 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTEMISA B. LOPEZ RAMIREZ, No. 19-72979

Petitioner, Agency No. A208-304-583

v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 3, 2025** Portland, Oregon

Before: McKEOWN and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge.

Artemisa Lopez Ramirez (“Lopez Ramirez”) petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) order affirming the immigration judge’s

* 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). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. (“IJ’s”) order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

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 review de novo

questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,

791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition.

1. The agency did not err in denying Lopez Ramirez’s applications for

asylum and withholding of removal. When an applicant seeks asylum or

withholding of removal based on membership in a “particular social group”

(“PSG”), the applicant must demonstrate (1) “the existence of a cognizable

particular social group,” (2) “his membership in that particular social group,” and

(3) “a risk of persecution on account of his membership in the specified particular

social group.” Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting

Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 223 (BIA 2014)). Here, the sole ground

on which the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding was Lopez

Ramirez’s failure to demonstrate membership in her two proposed PSGs, (1)

“Mexican women in a domestic relationship that they are unable to leave” and (2)

“Mexican women viewed as property.”

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez

Ramirez was not a member of the two proposed PSGs. See Hernandez-Montiel v.

2 19-72979 I.N.S., 225 F.3d 1084, 1091 (9th Cir. 2000) (whether applicant “is a member of a

particular group is a question of fact, to which we apply the substantial evidence

test”), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir.

2005). Lopez Ramirez was able to end her relationship with her ex-partner and

stop living with him with the support of her own mother, her ex-partner’s mother,

and other members of the community in which she lived. Additionally, when

Lopez Ramirez’s friend called the police after her confrontation with her ex-

partner at the restaurant, the police arrived and helped her. Although Lopez

Ramirez’s ex-partner periodically harassed her after she left him, Lopez Ramirez

never resumed a relationship with him. She went on to enter a new relationship

and marriage.

2. The agency also did not err in denying Lopez Ramirez’s application

for relief under CAT. To establish entitlement to CAT protection, an applicant

must show, inter alia, that she would be face torture “inflicted by, or at the

instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an

official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity” in the proposed

country of removal. Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 834 (9th Cir.

2022) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)). The sole ground on which the BIA

affirmed the IJ’s denial of CAT relief was for failure to demonstrate that a

government actor would acquiesce in her torture (assuming she demonstrated she

3 19-72979 would likely be subjected to torture).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination. Country

condition reports in the record show that the Mexican government was taking steps

to combat domestic violence. The general ineffectiveness of those efforts is not

enough to show acquiescence. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836

(9th Cir. 2016). Further, the agency properly relied on evidence that the police

responded to a call and assisted Lopez Ramirez and that an elected official ordered

Lopez Ramirez’s ex-partner to “leave [her] alone.” Although the police did not

arrest the ex-partner, and a prosecutor declined to bring charges against him, that

evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion.

PETITION DENIED.

4 19-72979