Maldonado Reyes v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-1503
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO MANBERTO No. 24-1503 MALDONADO REYES; MARTA MARIA Agency Nos. MALDONADO, A213-120-803 A214-120-775 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 14, 2025**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Manberto Maldonado Reyes and Marta Maria Maldonado

(“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)

* 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). decision denying their cancellations of removal, applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here

except as they pertain to our ruling.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition for

review. “[O]ur review is ‘limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the

IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th

Cir. 2010) (quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). “In

reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that

agency.” Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners’ son

would not experience “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” as is required

for cancellation of removal due to a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. §

1229b(b)(1)(D). At the time of the BIA’s decision, Petitioners’ son was 26 years

old, a United States citizen, a high school graduate, and employed as a truck driver.

Petitioners present no evidence which suggests hardship to their son “‘substantially

different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the

deportation’ of a ‘close family membe[r].’” Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209,

222 (2024) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).

2 24-1503 Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners failed

to demonstrate nexus as to their asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Petitioners fail to point to any evidence which hints that the phone calls received

from the gang members were due to Petitioners’ political opinions, opposition to the

gangs, or that gang members were in any way motivated to harm because of any

alleged cognizable social groups. Moreover, threats based solely on a desire for

financial gain bear no nexus to a protected ground. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,

1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Failure to establish a nexus is dispositive of Petitioners’ claims

for both asylum and withholding of removal. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d

1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016).

Petitioners have waived consideration of their CAT claim by failing to address

it in their opening brief. See Jang v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 1187, 1189 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015).

PETITION DENIED.

3 24-1503