Lopez-Santizo v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 25-1847
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORIO LOPEZ-SANTIZO, No. 25-1847 Agency No. Petitioner, A098-959-644 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 17, 2025**

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Gregorio Lopez-Santizo, 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, protection under the Convention Against Torture

* 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). (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the

petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of

cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. Garland, 596

U.S. 328, 338-40 (2022) (when the agency denies a form of relief listed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), federal courts have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims

and questions of law, but not factual findings or discretionary decisions). The

petition does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim the court can

review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Monroy v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175,

1177-78 (9th Cir. 2016) (petitioner’s disagreement with agency’s weighing of

equities did not present a reviewable legal or constitutional question).

As to asylum and withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s determination that Lopez-Santizo failed to show he was 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”). Because petitioner failed to show any nexus to a protected

ground, petitioner also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal.

2 25-1847 See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, Lopez-

Santizo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Lopez-Santizo failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured

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

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not address Lopez-Santizo’s contentions as to the one-year filing

deadline for asylum, the cognizability of his proposed particular social group, or

internal relocation, because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See

Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing

the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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

The motion to stay removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

3 25-1847