Gave Lujan v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 24-7697
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RENZO ALEXANDER GAVE LUJAN; et No. 24-7697 al., Agency Nos. A241-899-023 Petitioners, A241-899-026 A241-899-025 v. A241-899-024 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.

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

Submitted July 15, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Renzo Alexander Gave Lujan, Zedy Greyz Gamarra Manrique, and their two

minor children, natives and citizens of Peru, petition pro se for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

* 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). and protection 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

deny the petition for review.

Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s adverse credibility determination

in their opening brief and have thus forfeited any such argument. See Lopez-

Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). In the absence of

credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claims

because their claims were based on the same evidence found not credible, and

petitioners do not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the

conclusion that it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Peru. See id. at 1156-57.

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 24-7697