Mungia Padilla v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 10, 2025
• Docket: 23-2426
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KATERIN NOHEMI MUNGIA-PADILLA; No. 23-2426 D.M.M. Agency No. A220-147-224 Petitioners, A220-147-225 v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA J. 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.

Katerin Mungia-Padilla and her minor child, natives and citizens of Honduras,

petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming

the order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Mungia-Padilla’s applications for

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

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is no 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, and we deny the

petition.

1. “[F]ailure to raise an issue to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust.”

Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 2004); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Here,

the BIA found Mungia-Padilla has not contested the IJ’s dispositive determinations

on the lack of (1) harm rising to past-persecution or a well-founded fear of future

persecution, (2) nexus between persecution and the protected ground, (3) her

inability to relocate within Honduras to avoid persecution, and (4) showing that she

would be persecuted by the government or those the government are unwilling or

unable to control. Indeed, Mungia-Padilla never submitted a brief to the BIA that

explained the reasons for her appeal, necessitating the BIA to rely solely on the bare-

bones, 74-word Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal merely stated that “the

Immigration Judge erred in the decision that she had not established past persecution

on account of recognized particular social group, or that if returned to her home

country her government would torture her or allow her to be tortured [sic].” The BIA

thus found those issues waived on her asylum claim.

Mungia-Padilla’s opening brief does not challenge those waiver

determinations, and so, forfeits the right to appeal them. See Corro-Barragan v.

Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (petitioner “did not contest the

denial of cancellation of removal in her opening brief, so the issue is waived”).

2 23-2426 When the government raises the failure to exhaust, we “must enforce” the rule. See

Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023). Because the

government raised the issue, we deny her asylum and withholding claims as

unexhausted. See id.

2. Similarly, Mungia-Padilla has forfeited her challenge to the BIA’s

determination that she failed to adequately contest the IJ’s determinations of her

CAT claim. The BIA determined that she presented no meaningful challenge to the

denial of her application for CAT relief. Again, the opening brief makes no mention

of the waiver determination, and so, forfeits the right to appeal it. Corro-Barragan,

718 F.3d at 1177 n.5. We deny her CAT claim as unexhausted. Umana-Escobar,

69 F.4th at 550.

PETITION DENIED.

3 23-2426