Martinez Sarmiento v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-2821
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADRIANA MARTINEZ No. 24-2821 SARMIENTO; JHAIR MEJIA Agency Nos. SANCHEZ; EMMANUEL MEJIA A246-569-130 MARTINEZ; LUCIANA MEJIA A246-569-129 MARTINEZ, A246-569-132 A246-569-131 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 20, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, OWENS, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Adriana Martinez Sarmiento, her husband Jhair Mejia Sanchez,

and their two minor children, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review

* 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). of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal

from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). “Where the BIA writes its own decision, as it did here, we review the

BIA’s decision, except to the extent it expressly adopts the IJ’s decision.” Diaz-

Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1075–76 (9th Cir. 2020). As the parties are

familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition.

1. The BIA properly denied asylum and withholding of removal. To be

eligible for asylum and withholding of removal, Petitioners must demonstrate that

the Colombian government is unwilling or unable to protect them from

persecution. See J.R. v. Barr, 975 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 2020). Petitioners can

do so by showing evidence of government inaction on a police report. See Meza-

Vazquez v. Garland, 993 F.3d 726, 729–30 (9th Cir. 2021). Absent a police report,

Petitioners must show that seeking help from the Colombian authorities would

have been dangerous or futile. Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058

(9th Cir. 2006).

Here, Petitioners were unable to file a police report and did not establish that

seeking help from the Colombian authorities would have been dangerous or futile.

The Colombian authorities have arrested and convicted members of the Gulf Clan

previously, including Mejia Sanchez’s brother-in-law. When the Colombian

2 24-2821 government suspected Mejia Sanchez of his brother-in-law’s criminal activity, they

subpoenaed him. The Colombian authorities are actively searching for the brother-

in-law. Because substantial evidence supports that the Colombian government is

not unable or unwilling to protect Petitioners, the BIA did not err in affirming the

denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

2. The BIA properly affirmed the denial of CAT protection. To be eligible

for CAT protection, Petitioners must show that they will more likely than not be

tortured by or with acquiescence of the Colombian government upon return to

Colombia. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1067 (9th Cir. 2021) (describing

the standard for CAT claims). Petitioners did not meaningfully challenge the IJ’s

finding that the Colombian government would not acquiesce in any torture they

might face upon return, waiving that issue before the BIA. Thus, the BIA did not

err when it denied Petitioners’ CAT claim based on that dispositive finding.

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 24-2821