Ferreira Sousa v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-5733
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA LUCINETE FERREIRA No. 24-5733 SOUSA; HELIO DE JESUS Agency Nos. ALVES; LUDSARA DA SILVA A220-553-310 SOUSA; ANA ELISA SOUSA DE JESUS, A220-553-309 A220-553-311 Petitioners, A220-553-312 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 24, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: CLIFTON, OWENS, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Lead petitioner Maria Lucinete Ferreira Sousa, her husband Helio de Jesus

Alves, their adult daughter Ludsara da Silva Sousa, and their minor daughter Ana

* 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). Elisa Sousa de Jesus, natives and citizens of Brazil, petition for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal from the

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum and withholding

of removal. “Where the BIA writes its own decision, as it did here, we review the

BIA’s decision, except to the extent it expressly adopts the IJ’s decision.” Diaz-

Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2020). We review an agency’s

factual findings, including its findings as to persecutors’ actual motives, for

substantial evidence. Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 7 F.4th 888, 893 (9th Cir.

2021). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We

deny the petition for review.

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

Sousa failed to establish that the police militia imputed a political opinion to her.

She does not provide evidence of any statements by the militia that could be direct

evidence of an imputed political opinion. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d

1026, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that persecutors’ statements attributing

political views to an applicant are direct evidence of an imputed political opinion).

As for circumstantial evidence, we reject Ferreira Sousa’s argument that her

resistance to her persecutors establishes nexus to an imputed political opinion. See

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A] desire to be free from

harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members

2 24-5733 bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). An applicant subject to extortion can still

establish nexus to an imputed political opinion when their “refusal to accede to

extortion in a political system founded on extortion result[s] in [their] classification

and treatment as a subversive.” Agbuya v. INS, 241 F.3d 1224, 1229 (9th Cir.

2001) (citation omitted). However, the record does not compel the conclusion that

the police militia existed in a political system founded on extortion or that it

classified or treated Ferreira Sousa as a subversive.

An applicant can also establish that they were persecuted on account of a

political opinion if there is “no other logical reason for the persecution at issue.”

Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). But

Ferreira Sousa cannot establish nexus by this negative inference because the police

militia’s desire for financial gain is a logical reason for its extortion schemes. See

Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1075 n.7 (9th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing

between persecution that is “solely on account of an economic motive,” which

does not afford asylum protection, and economic persecution on account of a

protected ground).

2. Ferreira Sousa argues that the IJ erred in determining that she did not

establish that the Brazilian government persecuted her or was unwilling or unable

to control her persecutors, but we do not reach these issues because the BIA did

not rely upon them. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021)

3 24-5733 (“In reviewing the BIA’s decisions, we consider only the grounds relied upon by

that agency.”).

3. The stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

4 24-5733