Oros Moreno v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 15, 2025
• Docket: 23-1971
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN MANUEL OROS No. 23-1971 MORENO; MARIA GUADALUPE Agency Nos. MADRIZ RUBIO; ELYSA OROS A209-391-996 MADRIZ; BRANDON EMANUEL OROS A209-158-127 MADRIZ, A209-158-128 A209-158-129 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 11, 2025** Seattle, Washington

Before: GRABER, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Mexico, seek review of an order by the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which denied their claim for protection

* 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). under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

The BIA adopted the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision in its entirety, citing

Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994). See Lezama-Garcia v. Holder,

666 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, “we treat the IJ’s decision as that of the

BIA.”2 Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009). “We review the denial

of CAT relief for substantial evidence.” Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th

696, 703 (9th Cir. 2022). “Under the substantial evidence standard, administrative

findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (quoting Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d

1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006)).

1. “The dispositive question in assessing a CAT claim is ‘whether the

alien is more likely than not to be tortured in the country of removal.’” Id. at 704

(quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(4)). “To constitute torture, an act must inflict ‘severe

pain or suffering,’ and it must be undertaken ‘at the instigation of, or with the consent

or acquiescence of, a public official.’” Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 769

1 Petitioners are Juan Manuel Oros Moreno, Maria Guadalupe Madriz Rubio, and their two children, who were both minors during the proceedings before the immigration judge. The BIA determined that the children were not eligible for CAT protection because they did not file their own applications for relief. Petitioners do not challenge that determination. 2 For simplicity, we refer to the BIA and the IJ collectively as “the agency.”

2 23-1971 (9th Cir. 2022) (emphasis added) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioners

failed to show it was more likely than not that they would be tortured with the

necessary government involvement or acquiescence. The agency noted that there is

some “corruption at various levels of the Mexican government” and that it is “not

inconceivable that there are officials in the area where [Petitioners] live that might

be corrupt or live in fear themselves of the criminal group.” It also considered the

adult male Petitioner’s testimony that he had “heard through the rumor mill that

sometimes the police will arrest people and turn them over to the cartel.” But the

agency noted that this had never happened to Petitioners and that the police were not

involved when the drug traffickers beat the adult male Petitioner. The agency also

pointed to a news article that undermined Petitioners’ claim that the government

would acquiesce in their torture by drug traffickers, as the article reported that police

had engaged in an “hours-long firefight” with alleged drug traffickers.

Assessing this evidence, the agency reasonably concluded that Petitioners had

failed to show that the government would more likely than not acquiesce in their

torture. Petitioners’ evidence supporting government involvement or acquiescence

was not particular to them, and generalized evidence is insufficient to meet an

applicant’s claim for CAT relief. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152

(9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and

3 23-1971 crime in Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet [the CAT]

standard.”); Tzompantzi-Salazar, 32 F.4th at 706 (similar).3

2. Petitioners argue that we should remand their case because their

counsel before the agency rendered ineffective assistance. But we “require an alien

who argues ineffective assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies

by first presenting the issue to the BIA.” Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121,

1124 (9th Cir. 2000). Because Petitioners have not presented their claim to the BIA,

we cannot review it. See id. (denying petition for failure to satisfy the administrative

exhaustion requirement).4

PETITION DENIED.

3 Because Petitioners fail to satisfy the essential element of the required government involvement or acquiescence, we need not address their remaining assignments of error. 4 The arguments raised for the first time in Petitioners’ reply brief are forfeited or waived. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020).

4 23-1971