Diego-Pedro v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 17, 2025
• Docket: 24-1556
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCOS DIEGO-PEDRO; D.E.D.-S., No. 24-1556 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A220-320-467 A220-320-468 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 12, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: CLIFTON, BYBEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Marcos Diego-Pedro and his minor child petition for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing their appeal from the

immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under

* 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 Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We deny the petition.

“We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de

novo.” Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Where

the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision by citing Matter of Burbano, as here,

we “review the decision of the IJ, as well as any additional reasoning offered by the

BIA.” Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008).

Diego-Pedro argues that the IJ erred by failing to consider all relevant

evidence in its decision—namely the Human Rights Report and Crime and Safety

Report. However, there is no evidence that the IJ failed to consider these reports.

The IJ stated that it had considered Diego-Pedro’s evidence, “including country

conditions,” “whether or not specifically discussed in the oral decision.” Diego-

Pedro’s conclusory assertions to the contrary do not “overcome the presumption that

[the IJ] did review the evidence.” See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095–

96 (9th Cir. 2000).

Diego-Pedro also argues that the IJ erred by assuming that “resistors of gang

recruitment” is not a cognizable particular social group. However, any such

assumption is irrelevant because Diego-Pedro never alleged persecution based on

his membership in this group.

1 Diego-Pedro’s minor child asserts a derivative asylum claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A).

2 24-1556 Finally, Diego-Pedro argues that the IJ erred in its CAT analysis by requiring

him to show past torture and by failing to consider the aggregate risks of future

torture he may face. However, the IJ correctly noted that (1) Diego-Pedro and his

family were never physically harmed in Guatemala, (2) there was no evidence that

this would change in the future, (3) the threats were not severe enough to amount to

torture, and (4) there was insufficient evidence that the government would acquiesce

in any harm to Diego-Pedro or his minor child. See Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch,

800 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When evaluating an application for CAT

relief, the IJ and the BIA should consider ‘all evidence relevant to the possibility of

future torture, including . . . [e]vidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant.’”

(alteration in original) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3))). The record therefore does

not compel the conclusion that Diego-Pedro or his minor child would more likely

than not be tortured if removed to Guatemala or that the government would

acquiesce in any torture.

PETITION DENIED.

3 24-1556