Martins v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 24-6579
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLAUDIO MARTINS, No. 24-6579 Agency No. Petitioner, A059-389-130 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of an Immigration Judge

Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Claudio Martins, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions pro se for review of

an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order affirming an asylum officer’s negative

reasonable fear determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for substantial evidence the IJ’s affirmance of the negative reasonable fear

* 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). determination. Orozco-Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021). We

deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Martins failed to

show a reasonable possibility that the harm he suffered or fears was or would be on

account of a protected ground. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th

Cir. 2018) (no basis for withholding of removal where petitioner did not show a

nexus to a protected ground).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Martins failed

to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence

of the government if returned to Brazil. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d

829, 836-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (petitioner failed to demonstrate government

acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of future torture)

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 24-6579