Hidalgo Hidalgo v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: 24-6283
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONAL MANFRED HIDALGO No. 24-6283 HIDALGO, Agency No. A094-029-695 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Ronal Manfred Hidalgo Hidalgo, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his

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

* 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). 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 review de novo questions of law.

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

petition for review.

We do not disturb the agency’s determination that Hidalgo Hidalgo failed to

show he suffered harm that rose to the level of persecution. See Mendez-Gutierrez

v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (unspecified threats 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). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Hidalgo

Hidalgo failed to show a clear probability of future persecution, as required for

withholding of removal. See, e.g., Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.

2003) (feared persecution “too speculative” to support claim). Thus, Hildalgo

Hidalgo’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Hidalgo Hidalgo’s contentions that he has established eligibility for asylum

and CAT protection are not properly before the court because he did not raise them

before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (administrative remedies must be

exhausted); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023)

2 24-6283 (section 1252(d)(1) is not jurisdictional).

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 24-6283