Rafael Guerrero Sierra v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 20-71313
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL GUERRERO SIERRA, No. 20-71313

Petitioner, Agency No. A209-301-748

v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 10, 2026** San Francisco, California

Before: H.A. THOMAS and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges, and VERA,*** District Judge.

Rafael David Guerrero Sierra, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his

* 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 Hernan Diego Vera, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

1 20-71313 appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) (collectively, the “Agency”) order denying

his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252, and we deny the petition.

Where, as here, the BIA relies in part on the IJ’s decision, we review both

the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir.

2020). We review legal determinations de novo and factual determinations for

substantial evidence.2 See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir.

2023).

1. Substantial evidence supports the Agency’s determination that

Guerrero Sierra did not establish a nexus between his past harm and membership in

the particular social group of “Hondurans who take concrete steps to oppose gang

membership and authority.” Guerrero Sierra testified that gang members targeted

him because “[t]hey were looking for people to recruit” and “they wanted young

people for their gang.” But he did not describe in that testimony any concrete steps

he took before or during the attack. Although some evidence suggests that the gang

1 Guerrero Sierra seeks review of the Agency’s denial of his application for asylum based on a particular social group, but not its denial of his applications for asylum based on political opinion, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. 2 We cannot “review the record de novo” and “make [our] own independent determination on questions of law and fact,” as Guerrero Sierra asks us to do. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A), (B).

2 20-71313 harmed Guerrero Sierra in part because he refused to join them, we may not

substitute our judgment for the Agency’s when it comes to reasonably weighing

the evidence. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009). The record

does not compel a finding of nexus between Guerrero Sierra’s past harm and any

concrete steps he may have taken to oppose the gang. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

502 U.S. 478, 483–84 (1992).

2. Guerrero Sierra also challenges the IJ’s determinations that the past

harm he suffered in Honduras did not constitute past persecution and that the

proposed particular social group is not cognizable. We decline to review these

findings because our review of the IJ’s decision is limited to the grounds upon

which the BIA relied, Iman, 972 F.3d at 1064, and the BIA did not reach this

issue.3

PETITION DENIED.

3 Guerrero Sierra fails to meaningfully challenge the Agency’s finding that he had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution and therefore forfeits the issue. See Olea-Serefina v. Garland, 34 F.4th 856, 867 (9th Cir. 2022) (deeming forfeited an argument that was “purely conclusory and devoid of supporting factual detail or legal argument”).

3 20-71313