Porto Queiroz v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-3168
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACSON PORTO QUEIROZ; et al., No. 24-3168 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A220-216-939 A220-216-940 v. A220-216-941 A220-216-942 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent. MEMORANDUM*

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

Submitted May 21, 2025**

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

Jacson Porto Queiroz and his family, natives and citizens of Brazil, petition

pro se 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, 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. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947

F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law and

constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.

2005). We deny the petition for review.

To the extent petitioners contend they experienced past persecution, this

issue 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).

As to future persecution, substantial evidence supports the agency’s

determination that petitioners are ineligible for asylum as internal relocation is a

safe and reasonable option. Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir.

2003) (“[T]he IJ may deny eligibility for asylum to an applicant who has otherwise

demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution where the evidence establishes

that internal relocation is a reasonable option under all of the circumstances.”).

Because petitioners have not established eligibility for asylum, it necessarily

follows that they have not established eligibility for withholding of removal, which

requires applicants to satisfy the more stringent “more likely than not” standard.

See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019).

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

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

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if they returned to

Brazil. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (“torture

must be ‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of

a public official or other person acting in an official capacity’” (internal citation

omitted)).

Petitioners’ claim that the IJ violated due process by issuing an oral and

unsigned order fails because petitioners have not shown error or prejudice. See

Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a

due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and

prejudice.”)

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.