Perez-Sontay v. Bondi

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OLGA PEREZ-SONTAY; et al., No. 25-3303 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A209-143-142 A209-143-143 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Olga Perez-Sontay and her son, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for

asylum and Perez-Sontay’s applications for withholding of removal and 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”). We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.

Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition for

review.

The BIA did not err in its conclusion that petitioners waived any challenge

to the IJ’s dispositive determination that they did not establish the Guatemalan

government is unable or unwilling to protect them from their persecutors. See

Alanniz v. Barr, 924 8 F.3d 1061, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2019) (no error in BIA’s

waiver determination). Petitioners’ contentions in the opening brief that the

Guatemalan government is unable or unwilling to protect them are not properly

before the court because petitioners did not raise them before the BIA. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (administrative remedies must be exhausted); see also

Suate-Orellana v. Garland, 101 F.4th 624, 629 (9th Cir. 2024) (exhaustion is not

jurisdictional but mandatory when raised by the government). Thus, petitioners’

asylum claims and Perez-Sontay’s withholding of removal claim fail.

We do not address petitioners’ remaining contentions as to the merits of

their asylum and withholding of removal claims because the BIA did not deny

relief on other grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829

(9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the

grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks

2 25-3303 omitted)).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Perez-Sontay failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The motion to stay removal is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 25-3303