Garcia-Perez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2026
• Docket: 25-3277
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVELIN SUREIMA GARCIA-PEREZ; et No. 25-3277 al., Agency Nos. A201-734-053 Petitioners, A201-734-054 A201-734-055 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Evelin Sureima Garcia-Perez and her family, natives and citizens of

Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision

denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

* 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). under the 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 do not disturb the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to show

they suffered harm that rose to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v.

Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (threats by phone and in person, without

acts of violence, were insufficient to rise to the level of persecution); see also

Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not

resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence review applies, where result

would be the same under either standard).

As to well-founded fear of future persecution, petitioners do not challenge

the BIA’s conclusion that they waived review of the IJ’s dispositive determination

that they failed to demonstrate the Guatemalan government is unable or unwilling

to protect them, so we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d

1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Because petitioners failed to show eligibility for

asylum, they failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas

Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021). Thus, petitioners’

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to the cognizability of their

proposed particular social groups and nexus because the BIA did not deny relief on

2 25-3277 those grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.

2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied

upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Substantial evidence 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 Guatemala.

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The motion to stay removal is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 25-3277