Hernandez-Diaz v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-3355
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAQUEL ELIZETTE HERNANDEZ- No. 24-3355 DIAZ; ESTEVEN ROJAS-HERNANDEZ, Agency Nos. A208-990-759 Petitioners, A208-990-740 v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 20, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Raquel Elizette Hernandez-Diaz and her minor child (“Petitioners”), natives

and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a decision by the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal from an order of an immigration 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). (“IJ”) denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. “In reviewing the BIA’s decisions, we consider only the grounds

relied upon by that agency.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir.

2021). We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for

substantial evidence and must uphold them unless the evidence compels a contrary

conclusion. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We

deny the petition.

1. The BIA determined that Petitioners did not meaningfully challenge

the IJ’s findings that Hernandez-Diaz had not established past persecution in El

Salvador or that Salvadoran authorities were unable or unwilling to protect her

from persecution. The BIA thus concluded those arguments were waived. Before

us, Petitioners fail to meaningfully contest the waiver determination.1 Thus,

Petitioners have forfeited any argument that the BIA’s waiver determination was

erroneous. See Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (deeming

an issue forfeited, and declining to consider that issue, when not specifically and

distinctly argued in the opening brief).

1 Petitioners also fail to meaningfully challenge the agency’s determination that Hernandez-Diaz did not establish that relocation within El Salvador to avoid future persecution is unreasonable or unsafe. Thus, this issue is also forfeited. See Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022).

2 24-3355 2. The agency’s denial of CAT relief is supported by substantial

evidence. Hernandez-Diaz has not demonstrated “that it is more likely than not

that [she] will face a particularized and non-speculative risk of torture.” Park v.

Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). The country

conditions evidence regarding the strength and sophistication of Salvadoran gangs

and the corruption of the Salvadoran government is insufficient to compel the

conclusion that Hernandez-Diaz would face torture in El Salvador. See

Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 706–07 (9th Cir. 2022) (denying

petition for review because country conditions evidence acknowledging “crime and

police corruption in Mexico generally” did not demonstrate that the petitioner

faced a “particularized, ongoing risk of future torture”). Hernandez-Diaz’s CAT

claim is further undermined by the fact that she spent time in San Salvador without

incident, as well as the fact that several of Hernandez-Diaz’s similarly-situated

family members remain in El Salvador unharmed. See id. at 704–05 (finding that

petitioner’s ability to safely relocate justified denial of CAT relief); Blandino-

Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013) (denying CAT relief in part

because the CAT applicant “had not presented evidence that similarly-

situated individuals are being tortured”).

3 24-3355 PETITION DENIED.2

2 Petitioners’ Motion to Stay Removal (Dkt. No. 2) is denied as moot. The temporary stay (Dkt. No. 10) will dissolve when the mandate issues.

4 24-3355