Hercules-Hercules v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 25-1711
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRENDA NOEMY HERCULES- No. 25-1711 HERCULES; et al., Agency Nos. A215-757-934 Petitioners, A215-757-935 A215-757-936 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Brenda Noemy Hercules-Hercules and her minor children, natives and

citizens of El Salvador, 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, 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by

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 review de novo questions

of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny

the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners did

not establish that the government of El Salvador was or is unable or unwilling to

control the agents of any past or feared persecution. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales,

409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel finding that

government was unwilling or unable to control the feared harm). Thus, petitioners’

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

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 El Salvador.

See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (“torture must

be ‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a

public official or other person acting in an official capacity’”) (internal citation

omitted)).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining

contentions regarding the merits of their claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371

2 25-1711 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues

unnecessary to the results they reach).

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

The motion to stay removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 25-1711