Mazariegos v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 25-3196
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ASTRID MAYARI MAZARIEGOS; et al., No. 25-3196 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A209-951-531 A209-951-532 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

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.

Astrid Mayari Mazariegos and her child, natives and citizens of Guatemala,

petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing

their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

* 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). Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,

791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings. Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition

for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to show they were 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”); see also Reyes v. Lynch,

842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (an applicant’s burden includes “(1)

demonstrating the existence of a cognizable particular social group, (2) his

membership in that particular social group, and (3) a risk of persecution on account

of his membership in the specified particular social group.” (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted)). Petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims

therefore fail. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).

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

because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they 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).

2 25-3196 In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining

contentions regarding the merits of their claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371

F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues

unnecessary to the results they reach).

Petitioners’ claim that the agency violated due process fails because they

have not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.

2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a

violation of rights and prejudice.”).

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

The motion to stay removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 25-3196