Reyes Orellana v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-6490
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIA YULISSA REYES ORELLANA, No. 24-6490 Agency No. Petitioner, A201-419-385 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 7, 2025** Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: McKEOWN, FRIEDLAND, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Dania Yulissa Reyes Orellana, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for

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

appeal from an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and we deny the petition.

We review de novo the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ did not violate Reyes

Orellana’s right to due process in her removal proceeding. Arizmendi-Medina v.

Garland, 69 F.4th 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2023). Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s

decision regarding asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, while adding

some of its own reasoning, we review both decisions. Sanchez v. Sessions, 904 F.3d

643, 649 (9th Cir. 2018). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial

evidence. Perez-Portillo v. Garland, 56 F.4th 788, 792 (9th Cir. 2022).

1. We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ did not violate Reyes

Orellana’s right to due process in her removal proceeding. In the removal

proceedings context, “[a] due process violation occurs where (1) the proceeding

was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably

presenting his case, and (2) the alien demonstrates prejudice, which means that the

outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.”

Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Lacsina

Pangilinan v. Holder, 568 F.3d 708, 709 (9th Cir. 2009)).

The IJ’s conduct did not deprive Reyes Orellana of the chance to reasonably

present her case. During her hearing, the IJ occasionally interrupted Reyes

Orellana’s counsel’s questioning and made statements that could be construed as

skeptical of Reyes Orellana’s claims. But the IJ also gave Reyes Orellana’s counsel

2 24-6490 many opportunities to question her without interruption and to ask follow-up

questions following the IJ’s questioning. IJs have the express power to

“interrogate, examine, and cross-examine” noncitizens. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b). And

an IJ does not deprive a noncitizen of due process even if the IJ’s examination is

harsh, unfriendly, or aggressive. See Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688, 693 (9th Cir.

2016).

Additionally, Reyes Orellana has not shown that she was prejudiced by the

IJ’s conduct.

2. The agency’s determinations that Reyes Orellana did not establish

eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief are supported by

substantial evidence.1

The agency determined that Reyes Orellana failed to establish that the

government was unable or unwilling to protect her from future persecution, as

required for her asylum and withholding of removal claims. Velasquez-Gaspar v.

Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2020). That determination is supported by

substantial evidence because the record shows the government prosecuted Reyes

Orellana’s would-be persecutors for other acts of violence.

1 We need not reach the Government’s argument that Reyes Orellana failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417 (2023). Exhaustion is not jurisdictional, id. at 419, and the petition fails on the merits regardless.

3 24-6490 Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Reyes

Orellana failed to establish she would more likely than not be tortured with

government “consent or acquiescence” if removed, as required for CAT relief.

Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). There is no

evidence that the two men that Reyes Orellana fears have ties to the government or

that the government was involved or acquiesced in their prior conduct.

Additionally, both men have been prosecuted by the government before.

Generalized evidence of government corruption is insufficient to show future

government acquiescence. See, e.g., Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696,

706-07 (9th Cir. 2022).

PETITION DENIED.2

2 The stay of removal will dissolve upon the issuance of the mandate.

4 24-6490