Pop-Ba v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-2475
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CONSUELO POP-BA; et al., No. 24-2475 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A220-606-390 A220-606-088 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Consuelo Pop-Ba and her child, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition

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

their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

* 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). 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.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to show they were or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.

See Tapia Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[M]istreatment

motivated purely by personal retribution will not give rise to a valid asylum

claim . . . .”).

Petitioners’ contention that they fear harm on account of their imputed

political opinion is not properly before the court because they did not raise it

before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (administrative remedies must be

exhausted); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023)

(section 1252(d)(1) is not jurisdictional).

Because petitioners failed to show any nexus to a protected ground, they also

failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v.

Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).

Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by

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

2 24-2475 See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture

too speculative).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining

contentions regarding the merits of their claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371

F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues

unnecessary to the results they reach).

We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in the opening brief

that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-

64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 24-2475