Maria Alcantara Mendez v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 17-72144
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA ISABEL ALCANTARA MENDEZ, No. 17-72144 AKA Rosario Garcia Lopez, AKA Luz M. Renteria Govea, Agency No. A087-315-116

Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 2, 2026** Seattle, Washington

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Maria Isabel Alcantara Mendez (“Alcantara Mendez”), a citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our review is limited to the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision except to the extent that the

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) opinion was expressly adopted by the BIA. Garcia v.

Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021). We review factual findings for

substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088,

1091 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition.

1. Asylum and Withholding of Removal. The five statutorily protected

grounds for asylum and withholding of removal claims are race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group (“PSG”), and political opinion.

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Alcantara Mendez’s

claims are based on membership in a PSG.

A. The IJ and BIA determined that Alcantara Mendez’s proposed PSG,

“victims of domestic violence,” was not cognizable. Alcantara Mendez did

not challenge this determination in her opening brief. Accordingly, the issue

is forfeited. See Orr v. Plumb, 884 F.3d 923, 932 (9th Cir. 2018).

B. The BIA did not err in declining to consider the cognizability of an

additional proposed PSG, “Mexican women in a domestic relationship they

are unable to leave,” because Alcantara Mendez did not raise it before the IJ.

See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam)

(holding that “the [BIA] did not err when it declined to consider [the

2 petitioner’s] proposed [PSGs] that were raised for the first time on appeal”).

Accordingly, Alcantara Mendez’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail because she did not meet her burden to establish that she was or will be

persecuted on account of her membership in a cognizable PSG. See Gutierrez-Alm

v. Garland, 62 F.4th 1186, 1200 (9th Cir. 2023).

2. CAT. To qualify for CAT relief, a petitioner must establish that it is more

likely than not that she would be tortured if returned to the country of removal. 8

C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). “Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or

suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person,” 8

C.F.R. § 1208.18(a), and for CAT relief, acts of torture must be inflicted “by, or at

the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in

an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.” Id.

We are not persuaded by Alcantara Mendez’s argument that the BIA failed

to take into account her country conditions evidence, as the BIA cited it and

expressly stated that “the record reflects that domestic violence is a serious and

widespread problem in Mexico.” Further, the record does not compel the

conclusion that it is more likely than not that the Mexican government would

consent to or acquiesce in any future torture of Alcantara Mendez by her ex-

husband. See Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 770 (9th Cir. 2022).

Accordingly, the agency did not err in denying CAT relief.

3 PETITION DENIED.1

1 Alcantara Mendez’s motion to stay removal, Dkt. 1-4, is denied. The temporary stay of removal shall remain in place until the mandate issues.