De Jesus Diaz-Diaz v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 23-3709
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL DE JESUS DIAZ-DIAZ; N. D.- No. 23-3709 H., Agency Nos. A220-790-079 Petitioners, A220-790-078 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 14, 2025**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Manuel De Jesus Diaz-Diaz and his daughter, natives and citizens of El

Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

* 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). Torture (“CAT”). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them

here except as they pertain to our ruling.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition for

review. “[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 decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that

agency.” Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).

The BIA held that Petitioners waived any argument regarding nexus in their

asylum and withholding of removal claims by failing to address the issue. Thus, this

argument was not exhausted as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). See Rizo v. Lynch,

810 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 2016). Furthermore, Petitioners’ brief to our Court does

not “specifically and distinctly” argue that this ruling was error, thus, they have

forfeited any challenge to the BIA’s waiver determination. Hernandez v. Garland,

47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062,

1065 (9th Cir. 2020)). Failure to establish a nexus is dispositive of Petitioners’

claims for both asylum and withholding of removal. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841

F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016).

As for Petitioners’ CAT claim, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

conclusion that Petitioners will not be tortured in El Salvador with the acquiescence

2 23-3709 of the government. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a). Petitioner never

reported the threats he received to the police, and there is no evidence in the record

that the police may have otherwise been made aware of the threats against him when

he was in El Salvador. Petitioner has numerous siblings, parents, and a son who

have been living in El Salvador since he left and there is no evidence they have been

contacted by these gang members.

PETITION DENIED.

3 23-3709