Gerardo Martinez v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 10, 2026
• Docket: 20-73105
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERARDO NUNO MARTINEZ; SANDRA No. 20-73105 GUADALUPE CRUZ MORENO; GERARDO RAMSES NUNO CRUZ; Agency Nos. A206-677-856 MARIANA ZOE NUNO CRUZ, A206-677-848 A206-677-849 Petitioners, A206-677-850

v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 6, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, DESAI, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Gerardo Nuno Martinez (“Nuno Martinez”), his wife Sandra Guadalupe

Cruz Morena (“Cruz Morena”), and their two minor children, natives and citizens

of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

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

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

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

and deny the petition.

Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning and supplements that

reasoning with its own analysis, we review both decisions to the extent the BIA, in

reaching its decision, relied on the grounds considered by the IJ. Bhattarai v.

Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016); Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657

F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). We review the BIA’s factual findings under the

substantial evidence standard and review de novo both legal questions and mixed

questions of law and fact. Mendoza-Pablo v. Holder, 667 F.3d 1308, 1312 (9th

Cir. 2012). When reviewing factual findings, including adverse credibility

determinations, we “must accept ‘administrative findings’ as ‘conclusive unless

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’”

Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357, 365 (2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. §

1252(b)(4)(B)); see also Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020).

1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility

determination. Specifically, the IJ cited numerous specific and cogent reasons to

support the adverse credibility determination, including the implausibility of the

details of Nuno Martinez’s attack; and inconsistencies related to (1) the identity of

2 Nuno Martinez’s attackers; (2) the damage to Nuno Martinez’s motorcycle and the

phone call he had with Cruz Morena while he was with his attackers; and (3) the

threats Nuno Martinez received after he fled his hometown with his family. See

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046–47 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that

substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility finding where the

petitioner’s testimony regarding his alleged persecution contradicted his

declaration). Additionally, the BIA reasonably credited the IJ’s assessment of

Nuno Martinez’s demeanor, noting “several examples of [Nuno Martinez]

attempting to communicate with and influence [via coughs and grunts] a testifying

witness [i.e., Cruz Morena]; finding these actions to support a negative inference.”

See Uc Encarnacion v. Bondi, 156 F.4th 927, 937 (9th Cir. 2025) (stating the

“special deference” given to credibility determinations based on observations about

non-verbal behavior).

2. “Without credible testimony or sufficient corroborating evidence,

[Petitioners] cannot show that [they] ha[ve] a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’

based on a protected ground.” Mukulumbutu, 977 F.3d at 927 (citation omitted).

As such, we deny the petition with respect to Petitioners’ claims for asylum and

withholding of removal. See id.; Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1230

(9th Cir. 2016) (“A petitioner who fails to satisfy the lower standard of proof for

asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of

3 removal.”).

3. On the record here, “a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled

to find [Petitioners] eligible for CAT protection.” See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d

1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioners argue that the IJ erred by not considering

the country condition evidence, which demonstrates a “complicity with cartel

violence at all levels of the Mexican government and judiciary,” and that the BIA

impermissibly engaged in de novo review of this evidence. However, the IJ

concluded that “there is no indication on the four corners of [the] record that a

public official would” instigate, or consent or acquiesce to, Petitioners’ torture. As

such, the IJ properly considered the country condition evidence. See Garcia v.

Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Unless clear indications exist that

the IJ or BIA did not consider the documentary evidence, general language that the

agency considered all the evidence before it is sufficient.”) (citation modified).

Nonetheless, country condition evidence that is not particular to Petitioners

is insufficient to establish CAT eligibility. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d

1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of

violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to

meet [the CAT] standard.”). The BIA also noted that most of Petitioners’ family

remain in Mexico unharmed—including Nuno Martinez’s brother Carlos, who was

the gang members’ intended target when they misidentified Nuno Martinez as

4 Carlos and attacked him instead— rendering Petitioners’ fear of torture

speculative. See Andrade v. Garland, 94 F.4th 904, 915 (9th Cir. 2024) (“Because

the allegations of torture rest on a hypothetical chain of events, CAT relief cannot

be granted unless each link in the chain is more likely than not to happen.”)

(citation modified).

PETITION DENIED.1

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