Pineda-Ruano v. Bondi
This text of Pineda-Ruano v. Bondi (Pineda-Ruano v. Bondi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS FERNANDO PINEDA- No. 23-4361 RUANO; MALFI LOPEZ- Agency Nos. HERNANDEZ; K. P.-L., A220-688-933 A220-490-957 Petitioners, A220-490-958 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 6, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona
Before: HAWKINS, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Luis Fernando Pineda-Ruano, his wife Malfi, and their minor child
(collectively, Petitioners) petition for review of a decision of the Board of
* 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). Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming, without an opinion, an immigration judge’s
(IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). When, as here, the BIA affirms
without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision. Falcon-
Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2003). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. Petitioners challenge the agency’s denial of their application for
asylum and statutory withholding of removal. Before the immigration court, the
unrepresented Petitioners did not specifically allege harm based on race, religion,
nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Based on
the evidence and testimony, however, the IJ determined that Petitioners appeared
to allege past and future persecution based on their membership in the following
particular social groups: (1) “Guatemalans with jobs,” (2) “Guatemalans resisting
gang extortion,” and (3) “Guatemalan women.” See Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725,
734 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that “immigration judges are obligated to fully
develop the record in those circumstances where applicants appear without
counsel”).
The IJ determined that Petitioners were victims of criminal activity but that
they failed to show a nexus between demands from extortionists for money and
their membership in the particular social groups they appeared to allege.
2 23-4361 Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding of removal
based on the agency’s finding that Petitioners failed to establish any nexus between
past harm or feared future harm and their apparent proposed particular social
groups.1 See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s
desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random
violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). As the agency
concluded, the lack of a nexus to a protected ground is fatal to Petitioners’ claims
for asylum and statutory withholding of removal. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841
F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016); Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357–60
(9th Cir. 2017) (explaining the motive standards applicable to asylum and
withholding of removal). Therefore, we decline to consider Petitioners’ other
arguments regarding the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See 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. Petitioners failed to exhaust their claims for asylum and withholding
of removal that are based on two newly proposed particular social groups. They
also failed to exhaust their argument that the IJ failed to act as a neutral arbiter in
1 Pineda-Ruano testified that he was extorted by a gang and threatened and beaten when he did not pay.
3 23-4361 violation of their due process rights. In their petition for review, Petitioners argue
for the first time that they are entitled to asylum and withholding of removal based
on the proposed particular social groups “Guatemalans Who Cannot Pay Gang
Extortion Demands,” and “Guatemalans Who Have Reported Criminal Activity To
The Police.” They also argue for the first time that the IJ displayed judicial bias in
violation of their due process rights. Petitioners did not present either of these
arguments to the agency.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), a petitioner is required to exhaust arguments,
including some due process claims, to the agency. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d
1134, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Challenges to procedural errors correctable by the
administrative tribunal, must be exhausted before we undertake review.”)
(alterations and quotation omitted). Exhaustion, however, is a claims-processing
rule that can be waived. Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 423 (2023).
Because Petitioners did not present any arguments based on the newly proposed
particular social groups or their due process rights to the agency and because the
government did not waive the exhaustion requirement, we decline to consider these
arguments. See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023); cf.
Amaya v. Garland, 15 F.4th 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2021) (dismissing petition for
review when the petitioner failed to exhaust his due process claim based on the IJ’s
alleged bias to BIA).
4 23-4361 3. Petitioners challenge the agency’s denial of their application for CAT
protection. Because Petitioners did not meaningfully challenge the denial of CAT
protection in their appeal to the BIA, they waived review of their arguments
pertaining to that claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (requiring the exhaustion of
administrative remedies); Santos-Zacaria, 598 U.S. at 419 (holding that
§ 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional, claim-processing rule). Furthermore, even if
Petitioners’ arguments were not waived, substantial evidence supports the denial of
CAT protection because Pineda-Ruano fails to show that it is more likely than not
he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government
upon return to Guatemala. Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th
Cir. 2020).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pineda-Ruano v. Bondi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pineda-ruano-v-bondi-ca9-2025.