Camacho-Guerrero v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 4, 2026
• Docket: 24-5313
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 4 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID CAMACHO-GUERRERO, No. 24-5313 Agency No. Petitioner, A095-724-076 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 2, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge ***

David Camacho-Guerrero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his

appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for cancellation

* 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 Jeffrey Vincent Brown, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny

the petition for review.

“Where, as here, the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and affirms without

opinion, we review the decision of the IJ as the final agency determination.”

Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir. 2005). “We review the

denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial

evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We

review mixed questions of law and fact, including the “exceptional and extremely

unusual hardship” inquiry for cancellation of removal, for substantial evidence.

Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025).

1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioner failed

to establish that a qualifying relative would suffer “exceptional and extremely

unusual hardship.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). While Petitioner testified credibly to

the emotional and economic impact that his departure would have on his adult

citizen daughter, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his daughter would suffer

“hardship that deviates, in the extreme, from the hardship that ordinarily occurs in

removal cases.” Gonzalez-Juarez, 137 F.4th at 1007.

2. Petitioner also seeks review of the IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding

of removal, and CAT protection. The Government argues that Petitioner has

2 24-5313 waived these claims. We agree.

When a petition fails to “specifically and distinctly argue[] and raise[]” issues

for relief, “[Petitioner] has waived that claim.” Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d

1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Petitioner makes only conclusory

arguments as to his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, and fails to

challenge the IJ’s denial of his application for protection under the Convention

Against Torture entirely. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994)

(“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s

opening brief. . . . [A] bare assertion does not preserve a claim.”).

PETITION DENIED.1

1 Petitioner’s motion to stay removal (Dkt. No. 3) is DENIED as moot.

3 24-5313