Rincon Capera v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-1533
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALICIA RINCON CAPERA; et al., No. 25-1533 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A249-015-830 A249-015-831 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.

Alicia Rincon Capera, a native and citizen of Colombia, and her daughter, a

native and citizen of Mexico, 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 Rincon Capera’s applications

* 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). for withholding of 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.

We do not disturb the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to show

they suffered harm that rose to the level of persecution. See Mendez-Gutierrez v.

Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (unspecified threats were

insufficient to rise to the level of persecution); see also Flores Molina v. Garland,

37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve whether de novo or

substantial evidence review applies, where result would be the same under either

standard).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners failed

to show a reasonable possibility of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333

F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution was “too

speculative”).

Because Rincon Capera failed to show eligibility for asylum, she failed to

satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland,

990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021).

Thus, petitioners’ asylum claims and Rincon Capera’s withholding of

removal claim fail.

2 25-1533 In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining

contentions regarding the merits of their 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).

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

because Rincon Capera 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 Colombia.

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

The motion to stay removal is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 25-1533