Franco Rodriguez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 24-2305
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDER JOSUE FRANCO RODRIGUEZ; et No. 24-2305 al., Agency Nos. A208-601-461 Petitioners, A208-601-121 A208-601-122 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 15, 2025**

Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Eder Josue Franco Rodriguez and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico,

petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

* 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Arrey v. Barr,

916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to show they were or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.

See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum

claims fail.

Because petitioners failed to show any nexus to a protected ground,

petitioners also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of

torture).

Petitioners’ contentions regarding exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship and ineffective assistance of counsel are not properly before the court

because petitioners did not raise them before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)

2 24-2305 (administrative remedies must be exhausted); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland,

598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is not jurisdictional); Puga v.

Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir. 2007) (ineffective assistance of counsel

claims must be raised in a motion to reopen before the BIA).

The motions (Docket Entry Nos. 18, 24) for miscellaneous relief are denied.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 24-2305