Moposita-Laminia v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 18, 2026
• Docket: 25-2847
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILSON RODRIGO MOPOSITA- No. 25-2847 LAMINIA; et al., Agency Nos. A220-568-773 Petitioners, A220-568-774 A220-568-775 v. A220-568-776 A220-568-777 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent. MEMORANDUM*

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

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Wilson Rodrigo Moposita-Laminia and his family, natives and citizens of

Ecuador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying

their applications for asylum, and Moposita-Laminia’s applications for withholding

* 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 removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 suffered harm that rose to the level of persecution. See Wakkary

v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s past experiences,

including two beatings, even considered cumulatively, do not compel a finding of

past persecution); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.

2003) (discrimination and harassment did not rise to the level of persecution).

Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that they waived review of

the IJ’s disfavored group and pattern and practice determinations, so we do not

address these issues. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th

Cir. 2013). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners

failed to show a reasonable possibility of future persecution. See Nagoulko, 588

F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution was “too speculative”). Because

Moposita-Laminia failed to show eligibility for asylum, he failed to satisfy the

standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d

1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021).

Thus, we deny the petition for review as to petitioners’ asylum claims and

2 25-2847 Moposita-Laminia’s withholding of removal claim. In light of this disposition, we

need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding the merits of these

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).

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

because Moposita-Laminia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Ecuador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Moposita-

Laminia’s contention that the agency should apply the “substantial grounds for

believing” standard instead of the “more likely than not standard” for CAT

protection is without merit. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.

2001) (petitioner must satisfy “more likely than not” standard “whenever he or she

presents evidence establishing ‘substantial grounds for believing that he [or she]

would be in danger of being subjected to torture’ in the country of removal”

(alteration in original)).

The motion to stay removal is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 25-2847