Bravo Campos v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 18, 2025
• Docket: 24-6672
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGAR BRAVO CAMPOS, No. 24-6672 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-402-082 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted August 14, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: NGUYEN, FORREST, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Edgar Bravo Campos (“Bravo Campos”), a native and citizen of

Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision

dismissing an appeal from a decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Bravo

Campos’s claims for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture

* 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). (“CAT”) protection. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

petition.

When reviewing final orders of the BIA, we review the agency’s findings of

fact for substantial evidence. See Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748

(9th Cir. 2022). Under this standard, the agency’s facts are considered “conclusive

unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”

Id. (citation omitted). We review questions of law de novo. Id.

1. On appeal to the BIA, Bravo Campos failed to meaningfully address

whether his arson conviction was a particularly serious crime barring him from

eligibility for withholding of removal. So the BIA properly found that the issue was

waived in Bravo Campos’s administrative appeal. Accordingly, Bravo Campos has

not exhausted his administrative remedies. Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th

Cir. 2013) (“A petitioner’s failure to raise an issue before the BIA generally

constitutes a failure to exhaust ….”). And in his opening brief to our court, Bravo

Campos does not meaningfully contest the BIA’s conclusion that he waived the

argument as to his withholding of removal claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94

F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by

argument are deemed abandoned.”). Thus, Bravo Campos has both failed to exhaust

and waived any argument as to the IJ’s particularly serious crime determination. See

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 419 (2023) (“A court may review a final

2 24-6672 order of removal only if … the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies

available to the alien as of right.” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1))). Bravo Campos’s

waiver of this issue is dispositive of his claim for withholding of removal.

2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Bravo Campos’s CAT

claim. Apart from generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico, which is

insufficient to prove eligibility for CAT protection, Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600

F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010), Bravo Campos points only to the Cartel Jalisco

Nueva Generación (“CJNG”) as a potential torturer. But Bravo Campos admitted

that he could safely relocate elsewhere in Mexico to avoid the CJNG. Bravo Campos

also failed to show that the Mexican government would consent to or acquiesce in

his torture by these private actors. Although Bravo Campos presented evidence that

the Mexican government struggles to combat violence by organized criminal groups,

this evidence does not compel a finding of consent or acquiescence because “a

general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime

will not suffice to show acquiescence.” Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829,

836 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus the record does not compel the conclusion that Bravo

Campos will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of

the Mexican government if he is returned to Mexico.

PETITION DENIED.1

1 Petitioner’s motion to stay removal, Dkt. No. 3, is DENIED.

3 24-6672