Cisneros Valdovinos v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-5192
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAUL CISNEROS VALDOVINOS; No. 24-5192 ISABEL AYALA SANCHEZ; S. C. A.; S. Agency Nos. C. A., A246-269-482 A246-269-483 Petitioners, A246-269-484 A246-269-485 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 17, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: BOGGS, BRESS, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.***

Saul Cisneros Valdovinos, his wife, and their two children (collectively,

“Cisneros”), natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of

* 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 Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal of an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the denial of

asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence. Duran-

Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). “Under this standard, we

must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary

conclusion.” Id. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

petition.

1. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), a petitioner must “exhaust[ ] all

administrative remedies available to [him] as of right” before seeking judicial

review. “A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by making a general

challenge to the IJ’s decision, but, rather, must specify which issues form the basis

of the appeal.” Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004), abrogated on

other grounds by Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411 (2023). Because the

exhaustion requirement in § 1252(d)(1) is a mandatory claims-processing rule, we

“must enforce” the requirement “if a party ‘properly raise[s]’ it,” as the government

has done here. Suate-Orellana v. Garland, 101 F.4th 624, 629 (9th Cir. 2024)

(quoting Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541, 549 (2019)).

In this case, Cisneros failed to exhaust various aspects of his claims before the

BIA. First, Cisneros failed to exhaust his claims for asylum and withholding of

2 24-5192 removal to the extent they were based on persecution on account of his membership

in various proposed particular social groups. To establish the cognizability of a

proposed social group, an applicant bears the burden of showing that the group

satisfies the three factors of immutability, particularity, and social distinction. Conde

Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Matter of

M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Here, on appeal to the BIA,

Cisneros failed to challenge the IJ’s adverse findings regarding the particularity and

social distinction requirements. This failure to raise particularity and social

distinction below means that Cisneros’s cognizability argument is unexhausted, so

we do not consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69

F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023), as amended. To the extent Cisneros seeks to raise

proposed social groups that he did not raise before the IJ, those arguments are

likewise unexhausted.

Second, the BIA correctly found that Cisneros’s claim for CAT relief was also

waived. In his appeal brief before the BIA, Cisneros merely summarized the IJ’s

decision regarding his CAT claim while broadly discussing general legal standards

related to asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. This general discussion did not

adequately “specify” the issues that “form[ed] the basis of the appeal.” Zara, 383

F.3d at 930. Therefore, we do not consider Cisneros’s arguments regarding CAT

relief.

3 24-5192 2. Cisneros’s sole remaining argument is that the cartel members targeted him

due to his political opinion. Under the asylum standard, Cisneros “has the burden to

demonstrate a likelihood of ‘persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on

account of . . . [his] political opinion.’” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th

Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). To establish eligibility for

withholding of removal, Cisneros must “prove that it is more likely than not” he will

be persecuted in Mexico “because of” membership in a particular social group or

other protected ground. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357, 360 (9th Cir.

2017); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). “For both asylum and withholding claims,

[Cisneros] must prove a causal nexus between one of [his] statutorily protected

characteristics and either [his] past harm or [his] objectively tenable fear of future

harm.” Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023).

Cisneros’s argument fails due to a lack of nexus, as substantial evidence

supports the BIA’s conclusion that the cartel members targeted Cisneros only for

financial gain. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 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.”); Hussain v.

Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 649 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting that “generalized crime and

violence” in a country “cannot be a basis for granting asylum to any citizen of that

country in the United States”). The record shows that the cartel began threatening

4 24-5192 Cisneros after his butcher shop became successful. The cartel regularly extorted

other businesses in the area. And the cartel’s threats only referenced payments and

money. Indeed, nothing in the record shows that the cartel members were aware of

or acted on any political opinion held by Cisneros. Thus, substantial evidence

supports the agency’s no-nexus determination.

PETITION DENIED.1

1 Cisneros’s motion to stay removal, Dkt. 19, is denied. The temporary stay of removal shall remain in place until the mandate issues.

5 24-5192