Molina-Cardoza v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-2514
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDRA MOLINA-CARDOZA; MATEO No. 24-2514 GARCIA-MOLINA, Agency Nos. A220-912-983 Petitioners, A208-561-635 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 24, 2025** San Francisco, California

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

Petitioners, Sandra Molina Cardoza and her son Mateo, petition for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

* 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). protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Since the BIA

“conduct[ed] an independent review of the IJ’s findings, we review the BIA’s

decision and not that of the IJ.” Hernandez-Mancilla v. Holder, 633 F.3d 1182, 1184

(9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding

of removal. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481–83 (1992). To establish

entitlement to asylum and withholding of removal, Petitioners must show a nexus

between feared persecution and a protected ground. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846

F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017).

The record does not compel the conclusion that the BIA erred in determining

that Petitioners failed to establish a nexus between their feared persecution and a

protected ground. Petitioners first challenge the BIA’s determination that they are

not members of the protected groups of (1) “witnesses of crimes who testify publicly

against the gangs,” and (2) “individuals who take concrete steps to oppose gang

activities and authority.” Regarding the first group, the BIA reasonably determined

that lead Petitioner was not a “witness.” After her car was stolen, she didn’t call the

police and instead only spoke to them after they approached her. Unlike the

petitioners in Henriquez-Rivas, 707 F.3d 1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2013), she didn’t

testify in open court or otherwise publicly participate in the prosecution. Concerning

the second group, Petitioner did not take steps to oppose gang activities. For

2 24-2514 example, she paid the extortion money that the gangs demanded. Thus, the BIA

reasonably found she was not a member of the second proposed group.

Petitioners also challenge the BIA’s nexus finding. The BIA found that the

threats Petitioners received were only because of greed and personal animus. Lead

Petitioner expressly acknowledged that the main reason that gang members

threatened her was because they thought she had tried to send them to prison.

Retributory motives alone do not establish a nexus to a protected ground. Cf.

Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 751 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).

Further, although Petitioners assert membership in the proposed protected group

“members of the Molina family” they do not meaningfully challenge the BIA’s

conclusion that gang members did not have an interest in them because of their

family membership.

Because substantial evidence supports the lack of nexus to a protected ground,

the BIA reasonably denied her asylum and withholding of removal claims.

2. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT protection. To

establish entitlement to CAT relief, Petitioners must show that any torture would 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.”

Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 834 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.18(a)(1)). The record doesn’t support the assertion that the government of

3 24-2514 El Salvador would turn a blind eye to potential harm against Petitioners. Lead

Petitioner’s subjective belief that police would acquiesce is undermined by the fact

that police showed up after her car was stolen and arrested the suspects—alleged

members of the 18th Street Gang.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

4 24-2514