Lopez Polanco v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 21-441
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIRLENY ARACELI LOPEZ POLANCO; No. 21-441 et al.,* Agency No. A209-421-903 Petitioners, A209-241-904 v. MEMORANDUM**

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 12, 2025***

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Mirleny Araceli Lopez Polanco and her child, natives and citizens of

Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order

* The clerk will update the docket to include S.A.A.L., A209-241-904, as a petitioner. ** 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). dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

application for asylum and Lopez Polanco’s applications for withholding of

removal 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

review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. 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

failed to show they were or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.

See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire

to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by

gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum

claim fails.

Because Lopez Polanco failed to show any nexus to a protected ground, she

also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero

v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).

We need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding the merits of

their claims because nexus is dispositive. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532,

538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues

unnecessary to the results they reach).

2 21-441 Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Lopez Polanco failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.

See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of

torture).

To the extent petitioners raise a new particular social group for the first time

in their opening brief, it is not properly before the court because they did not raise

it before the agency. 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)

(section 1252(d)(1) is not jurisdictional).

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 21-441