Reyes-Torres v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-1396
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA MAGDALENA REYES-TORRES, No. 25-1396 Agency No. Petitioner, A202-080-434 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

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.

Maria Magdalena Reyes-Torres, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

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

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

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

* 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). 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 Reyes-Torres

failed to show she was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.

See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a

particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution

was or will be on account of his membership in such group”). Because Reyes-

Torres 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, Reyes-Torres’ asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail.

We do not address Reyes-Torres’ remaining contentions as to past

persecution, cognizability, and whether the government of El Salvador is unable or

unwilling to protect her because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See

Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing

the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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

because Reyes-Torres failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured

2 25-1396 by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El

Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The motion to stay removal is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 25-1396