Robles Fajardo v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-138
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAVIER ALEXANDER ROBLES No. 24-138 FAJARDO; SONIA YAMILETH Agency Nos. ALMENDARES AVILA; AARON A220-146-603 SANTIAGO ROBLES A220-146-604 ALMENDARES; ANGEL JAVIER A220-146-605 ROBLES ALMENDARES, A220-299-599 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 14, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Lead Petitioner Javier Alexander Robles Fajardo, his wife, and their two

* 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). minor children (collectively, “Petitioners”) are natives and citizens of Honduras.

They timely seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”), dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their

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

regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the IJ’s decision because the

BIA adopted it summarily. Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 (9th Cir.

2023). We review the agency’s factual determinations for substantial evidence,

meaning that we will not overturn a finding unless the evidence compels a

contrary conclusion. Aleman-Belloso v. Garland, 121 F.4th 1165, 1173 (9th Cir.

2024). We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioners

failed to establish the required nexus between past harm or feared future harm and

Lead Petitioner’s political opinion or his membership in a proposed particular

social group. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.

2023) (stating legal standard). The agency permissibly found that the members of

MS-13 who forced Lead Petitioner to pay them, and who threatened and beat him

1 Robles Fajardo listed his wife and two children as derivative beneficiaries on his asylum application. His wife and children later filed their own applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection on the basis of Robles Fajardo’s experiences.

2 24-138 when he stopped paying, were motivated solely by the desire to continue their

criminal enterprise. Nexus is therefore lacking. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d

1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by

criminals motivated by theft . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground.”).

Accordingly, we need not decide whether the proposed particular social

groups are cognizable nor whether Lead Petitioner established an actual or

imputed political opinion. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th

Cir. 2016) (“The lack of a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of [the

petitioner’s] asylum and withholding of removal claims.”).

2. With respect to their CAT claims, Petitioners do not challenge the

agency’s dispositive determination that their fears of future torture, if returned to

Honduras, are “speculative.” See Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir.

2023) (stating that, to be eligible for CAT relief, “[t]he record must show that it is

more likely than not that the petitioner will face a particularized and non-

speculative risk of torture” (emphasis altered)). And to the extent that Petitioners

mean to undermine that finding by asserting that Lead Petitioner has already

experienced harm rising to the level of torture, they waived that argument by

failing to raise it before the BIA. See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544,

550 (9th Cir. 2023) (explaining that exhaustion is a mandatory claim processing

3 24-138 rule that we must enforce when, as here, the government properly raises the issue

of waiver).

PETITION DENIED.

4 24-138