Dominguez-Chij v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 25-1271
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS DOMINGUEZ-CHIJ, No. 25-1271 Agency No. Petitioner, A216-638-509 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Argued and Submitted February 11, 2026 Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, WARDLAW, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Jose Luis Dominguez-Chij, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the

denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of his request for deferral of removal under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 Petitioner does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that he is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. and we deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner

failed to establish a particularized risk of torture with the acquiescence of a

government official in Guatemala. Petitioner suffers from several mental health

conditions and contends he will be tortured if placed in a psychiatric or penal

institution in Guatemala. The government correctly responds that these fears are

speculative and contingent upon Petitioner being institutionalized in Guatemala,

which is unlikely. To the extent that Petitioner contends he would be the victim of

gang violence and tortured with government acquiescence, there is no substantial

evidence to support this claim. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836-

37 (9th Cir. 2016); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014).

2. The IJ properly rejected evidence of Petitioner’s experience in a United

States institution as irrelevant. Petitioner had an opportunity to fully present his

case, and his presentation was not limited in any meaningful respect. Accordingly,

he fails to establish a due process violation. See Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d

1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011); Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 921 (9th Cir.

2006).

3. The BIA considered all of Petitioner’s claimed sources of torture and

properly concluded that, in the aggregate, they did not establish a likelihood he

would be tortured in Guatemala. See Velasquez-Samayoa v. Garland, 49 F.4th

2 25-1271 1149, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2022); Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 894-

95 (9th Cir. 2018).

4. The record refutes Petitioner’s contention that the agency ignored

Dr. Linscott’s psychological evaluation assessing the severity of his mental health

symptoms. We do not address Petitioner’s claims regarding the agency’s

consideration of Dr. Kirkland’s report and testimony because they are

unexhausted. See Magana-Magana v. Bondi, 129 F.4th 557, 573-74 (9th Cir.

2025).

PETITION DENIED.

3 25-1271