Bamaca-Juarez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 23-2021
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUMBERTO PATROCINIO BAMACA- No. 23-2021 JUAREZ; GRISELDA FLORINDA Agency Nos. BAMACA-AMBROCIO, A201-554-151 A201-554-152 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 13, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: N.R. SMITH and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.*** Humberto Patrocinio Bamaca-Juarez and his daughter as rider-derivative

* 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 Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. petition for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

dismissing their appeal of an order from an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) (collectively,

“the Agency”), which denied their applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). “[O]ur review is ‘limited to the BIA’s

decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’” Shrestha

v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471

F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). “In reviewing the BIA’s decisions, we consider

only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136,

1142 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition.

To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, an applicant

must show the existence of a nexus between past or feared future persecution and a

statutorily protected ground. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i),

1231(b)(3)(A); Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 356–57 (9th Cir. 2017).

Contrary to Petitioners’ contention, the Agency applied the correct nexus standards

for asylum and withholding and made clear findings. Substantial evidence,

including Bamaca-Juarez’s testimony, supports the Agency’s finding that the

attackers were motivated solely by financial gain. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d

1 Petitioners have not challenged the denial of CAT relief in their opening brief. Therefore, they have abandoned the issue. See Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015).

2 23-2021 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by

criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus

to a protected ground.”). Because Petitioners’ failure to establish nexus was

dispositive of their asylum and withholding claims, the BIA did not err in declining

to reach their arguments relating to their proposed particular social group. See INS

v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (“As a general rule courts and

agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is

unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

PETITION DENIED.2

2 The temporary stay of removal shall remain in effect until issuance of the mandate. The motion for stay of removal is otherwise denied.

3 23-2021