Ramos-Acuna v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-3443
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANA NOEMI RAMOS-ACUNA, et al.; No. 25-3443 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A216-637-526 A216-637-527 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted January 22, 2026**

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Ana Noemi Ramos-Acuna and her daughter, natives and citizens of

Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

applications for asylum, and Ramos-Acuna’s applications for withholding 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). removal and protection 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.

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 Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”). Because Ramos-Acuna

failed to show any nexus to a protected ground, she 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 claim, and Ramos-Acuna’s

withholding of removal claim fail.

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

contentions regarding the merits of their asylum and withholding of removal

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).

Ramos-Acuna does not challenge the agency’s determination that she 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, so we do not address it.

2 25-3443 See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

The motion to stay removal is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 25-3443