Fulgencio Vargas Ortiz v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 21-70491
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FULGENCIO VARGAS ORITZ; MARIA No. 21-70491 DE JESUS LOPEZ RENTERIA; KEVIN Agency Nos. VARGAS BETANCOURT; JOSE A208-118-371, A208-118-372, RONALDO TORRES LOPEZ; EMILY A208-118-373, A208-118-374, SAMANTA VARGAS BETANCURT; A208-118-375, A208-118-376, GUILLERMO VARGAS BETANCURT; A208-118-377 JORDIE JAVIER VARGAS LOPEZ,

Petitioners, MEMORANDUM*

v.

PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 22, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: R. NELSON and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and COLE, District Judge.***

* 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 Honorable Douglas R. Cole, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Petitioners Fulgencio Vargas Ortiz (“Vargas”), Maria de Jesus Lopez Renteria

(“Lopez”), and their children seek review of a summary affirmance by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of a decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying

Petitioners’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention

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

Because the BIA affirmed without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. Antonio

v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2023). We review factual findings for

substantial evidence and legal questions de novo. Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911

(9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition.

Petitioners have forfeited any argument as to the IJ’s conclusion that

Petitioners failed to demonstrate a nexus between the persecution they fear and a

statutorily protected ground. Beyond stating that they have “established a well-

founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground,” Petitioners’

brief does not raise any actual arguments directed to this issue. They have therefore

forfeited their challenge to the IJ’s conclusion regarding nexus. Transamerica Life

Ins. Co. v. Arutyunyan, 93 F.4th 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2024); Orr v. Plumb, 884 F.3d

923, 932 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[A]rguments … omitted from the opening brief are

deemed forfeited.”); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). This forfeiture dooms

their claims for both asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b),

1208.16(b); Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016).

2 21-70491 As for Petitioners’ CAT claim, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial

of that claim. The record does not “compel[] a conclusion” that it is more likely

than not Mexican officials will consent or acquiesce to Petitioners’ torture if they

return to Mexico. Singh v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2025) (quotation

omitted). All Petitioners provide is generalized evidence of Mexico’s violence and

crime statistics. See, e.g., AR 11–12, 131–46, 152–87. That is not enough.

Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that

“generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico” does not meet the standard

to obtain CAT relief).

PETITION DENIED.

3 21-70491