Moreno-Suarez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-3220
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YAMILE MARIA MORENO- No. 24-3220 SUAREZ; M. A. E.-M., Agency Nos. A241-743-788 Petitioners, A241-743-789 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 7, 2025**

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

Yamile Maria Moreno-Suarez and her minor child, natives and citizens of

Columbia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)

affirmance of an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying their applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

* 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). (CAT). Moreno-Suarez’s claims for relief stem from alleged harm she may suffer

because of a FARC member’s “obsession” with her husband.1 We have jurisdiction

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

When the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision without adding

commentary, as happened here, we treat the IJ’s decision as that of the BIA. Sinha

v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009). We review factual determinations

for substantial evidence and legal determinations de novo. Lalayan v. Garland, 4

F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021).

1. Moreno-Suarez does not satisfy any of the requirements for asylum. To

qualify for asylum, Moreno-Suarez must show (1) a well-founded fear of future

persecution, (2) on account of a protected ground, (3) perpetrated by the government

or by forces the government cannot or will not control. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder,

592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010).

First, Moreno-Suarez did not suffer past persecution because she never

personally experienced physical harm, incarceration, or threats. See Nahrvani v.

Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding no past persecution where

petitioner “suffered no physical harm” or detention). Further, the emotional harm

Moreno-Suarez suffered by learning of the difficulties her husband experienced

1 Moreno-Suarez’s husband, William Erazo-Ordonez (A 241-743-787), did not join the petition.

2 24-3220 before the pair met does not amount to persecution of her. See Tamang v. Holder,

598 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding threats against family members when

petitioner was not in the country do not count as past harm of petitioner).

Moreno-Suarez also lacks a well-founded fear of future persecution because

Moreno-Suarez’s husband has parents and four siblings who continue to live in

Columbia and report no threats from FARC members. See id. (“[P]etitioner’s fear

of future persecution ‘is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family

members living in the petitioner’s home country are not harmed.” (citation omitted)).

The fact that Moreno-Suarez also lived in Columbia for seven years, during which

time her husband alleges only twice glimpsing his former FARC tormentor, also

undermines Moreno-Suarez claim to have a “well-founded fear” of future

persecution.

Second, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that any harm

Moreno-Suarez may suffer lacks a nexus with membership in a protected group.

Moreno-Suarez claims she faces danger for opposing FARC or, as she says on

appeal, opposing gangs in Columbia. But she only alleges one FARC member, who

has a longstanding “obsession” with her husband, presents a threat. As the BIA

found, these facts reflect a personal dispute between two individuals rather than a

threat against Moreno-Suarez on account of her opposition to FARC.

Third, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Moreno-

3 24-3220 Suarez and her child would not face persecution by or with the acquiescence of the

Columbian government. Moreno-Suarez admits that the Columbian government

would not persecute her. Further, the Columbian government regularly prosecutes

FARC criminals. The inability of the Columbian government to arrest the person(s)

who shot her husband prior to the pair’s meeting, therefore, does not show an

inability or unwillingness to protect Moreno-Suarez or her child. Nahrvani, 399

F.3d at 1154. Hence, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that

Moreno-Suarez does not qualify for asylum.

2. Because Moreno-Suarez lacks a “well-founded fear” of future persecution,

she cannot show the more demanding “clear probability” of persecution necessary

for withholding of removal. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1066 (9th Cir.

2021).

3. Finally, because Moreno-Suarez could not show a well-founded fear of

persecution she also failed to show that, “more likely than not,” she would face

torture if returned to Columbia. See Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1067. Therefore, her CAT

claim fails.

PETITION DENIED.

4 24-3220