Patricia Parada-De Martinez v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 12, 2026
• Docket: 17-72828
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATRICIA ABIGAIL PARADA-DE No. 17-72828 MARTINEZ; KATHERINE ABIGAIL MARTINEZ-PARADA, Agency Nos. A206-776-604 A206-776-605 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 9, 2026** San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and BLUMENFELD,*** District Judge.

Petitioners Patricia Abigail Parada-de Martinez and her daughter Katherine

* 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). *** The Honorable Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. Abigail Martinez-Parada petition for review of a decision by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal of a decision from an

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that denied Petitioners’ application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-

Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017).

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the harm

Petitioners suffered and feared was not connected to a protected ground. Parada-de

Martinez credibly testified that gang members extorted and made threats against her

and her daughter, and that they feared what the gang members would do if their

demands were refused. But Parada-de Martinez did not show that any past or future

harm to her or her daughter was or would be on account of her membership in the

particular social group of “Salvadoran woman raising a daughter without male

support in El Salvador.” Indeed, Parada-de Martinez testified that most adolescents

in El Salvador “run the risk of being harassed or persecuted by the gangs” and agreed

that the children of her two brothers were likely to be pressured by gangs, despite

the fact that they lived with their fathers. Thus, the evidence does not compel the

conclusion that the lack of support from Parada-de Martinez’s daughter’s father was

a reason for the threats against her and her daughter. As a result, Petitioners’ asylum

2 and withholding of removal claims fail. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th

1012, 1023 (9th Cir. 2023) (both asylum and withholding claims fail when alleged

protected ground was not “a reason” for any past persecution).

2. To the extent that Petitioners now contend that CAT relief should have been

granted, that argument was not exhausted before the BIA and we may not consider

it. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see Suate-Orellana v. Garland, 101 F.4th 624, 629 (9th

Cir. 2024).

PETITION DENIED.