Moreno Nieto v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 8, 2025
• Docket: 24-4471
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 8 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ANTONIO MORENO NIETO; No. 24-4471 WENDY ANDREA VALENZUELA Agency Nos. ALVAREZ; ANTONY ALONSO A203-700-567 MORENO VALENZUELA; KIMBERLY A203-700-568 ELIZA MORENO VALENZUELA, A203-700-569 A203-700-570 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 21, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Jose Antonio Moreno Nieto, his wife Wendy Andrea Valenzuela Alvarez,

and their two minor children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, 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 a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from an

immigration judge’s order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Where, as here, the Board incorporates findings of the immigration judge

and adds its own reasoning, we review both decisions. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835

F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We review the Board’s factual findings for

substantial evidence. Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 641–42 (9th Cir. 2021).

Under that standard, findings of fact are “conclusive unless any reasonable

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B).

The standard of review for determining whether given facts amount to

persecution is “currently unsettled.” Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 n.8

(9th Cir. 2023); see Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, No. 24-777 (U.S. argued Dec. 1,

2025). But whether we review the Board’s ruling for substantial evidence or de

novo, our decision would be the same.

1. The Board did not err in determining that Moreno Nieto and his family

failed to establish past harm rising to the level of persecution. Threats are relevant

to the past-persecution analysis but do not necessarily compel a finding of past

persecution unless the threats, typically in combination with other mistreatment,

2 24-4471 “effect significant actual suffering or harm.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052,

1062 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.

2003)); see Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019)

(explaining that “cases with threats alone . . . rarely constitute persecution”).

Moreno Nieto was confronted at his home by armed cartel members, who

threatened to kill him and his family unless he joined the cartel. Moreno Nieto and

his family then left Mexico for the United States. They were never physically

harmed by the cartel members, and the threats were neither repeated nor combined

with other mistreatment. The Board did not err in finding that the threats amounted

only to harassment, not persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.

2000) (explaining that threats are often “indicative of a danger of future

persecution, rather than . . . past persecution itself”).

2. The record does not compel a finding of an objectively reasonable fear of

future persecution. See Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th

Cir. 2017) (en banc). Moreno Nieto and his family focus on their fear of the

cartels, citing articles and reports about cartel violence in Guerrero. But a fear of

generalized crime does not support a well-founded fear of future persecution. See

Hernandez-Galand v. Garland, 996 F.3d 1030, 1037 (9th Cir. 2021). Moreno

Nieto also testified that the cartel that threatened him was ultimately defeated by

another cartel and may no longer exist. There is no evidence in the record that any

3 24-4471 of the cartel members who threatened him have any continuing interest in him or

his family specifically. We therefore hold that the Board did not err in denying

Moreno Nieto and his family’s applications for asylum and withholding of

removal.

3. Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of protection under

the CAT because Moreno Nieto and his family did not show that it is more likely

than not that he will be tortured if returned to Mexico. To prevail on a CAT claim,

a petitioner must demonstrate a “particularized and non-speculative” risk of

torture. Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (emphasis omitted).

Moreno Nieto and his family present only generalized evidence of cartel violence

in Mexico, without pointing to any evidence in the record that they face a

particularized risk of torture. See Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051–52 (9th

Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

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

The motion to stay removal, Dkt. No. 3, is otherwise denied.

PETITION DENIED.

4 24-4471