Nancy Vargas Vargas v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 9, 2026
• Docket: 20-72251
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 9 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NANCY VARGAS VARGAS, No. 20-72251

Petitioner, Agency No. A202-176-744

v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 5, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, DE ALBA, and TUNG, Circuit Judges.

Nancy Vargas Vargas, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal from

an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection 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”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

“Where[, as here,] the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law,

rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision,

except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Diaz v. Bondi, 129

F.4th 546, 552 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169

(9th Cir. 2012)). We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and

CAT protection for substantial evidence. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d

1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). Under this standard, we must uphold the BIA’s

determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id.

1. Vargas Vargas failed to challenge the IJ’s determination that she

could safely relocate within Colombia on appeal to the BIA. While she argues in

her petition for review that the IJ’s internal relocation finding was erroneous, that

argument is unexhausted and we are precluded from reviewing it. See 8 U.S.C. §

1252(d)(1); Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023)

(“Exhaustion requires a non-constitutional legal claim to the court on appeal to

have first been raised in the administrative proceedings below, and to have been

sufficient to put the BIA on notice of what was being challenged.”) (quoting Bare

v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020)).

Since internal relocation is dispositive of asylum and withholding claims, we

need not address the remainder of Vargas Vargas’ claims. See Kaiser v. Ashcroft,

2 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that if the evidence shows that an

applicant can safely and reasonably internally relocate, the applicant is ineligible

for asylum); Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 646 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting that since

the asylum standard is more lenient than withholding of removal, “failing to

establish eligibility for asylum forecloses eligibility for withholding of removal”);

INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and

agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is

unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

2. Vargas Vargas does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she

failed to establish eligibility for protection under CAT, and thus that claim is

waived. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013)

(issues not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in party’s opening brief are

waived); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996).

PETITION DENIED.1

1 The motion for stay of removal, Dkt. 1, is denied.