Rodas De Vasquez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-2561
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 3 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SONIA ELIZABETH RODAS DE No. 24-2561 VASQUEZ; DAVID ELEAZAR Agency Nos. VASQUEZ RODAS; JORGE ENRIQUE A216-274-920 VASQUEZ RODAS, A216-274-921 A216-274-922 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 1, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.***

Petitioners Sonia Elizabeth Rodas De Vasquez (“De Vasquez”) and her 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). *** The Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana, sitting by designation. sons seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming a

decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Petitioners’ applications for

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

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Petitioners have both waived and failed to exhaust any argument (1) as to the

IJ’s conclusion that Petitioners’ particular social group was not cognizable because

it is impermissibly defined by the asserted harm and (2) that Petitioners had failed

to show that the government was unwilling or unable to control the private actors

that Petitioners fear. These issues are unexhausted because Petitioners did not

contest these conclusions on appeal to the BIA. And in their briefing to this court

Petitioners have not challenged the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners had waived any

challenge to these findings. Thus Petitioners have both failed to exhaust and waived

any argument regarding the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s findings on these

issues. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Santos-Zacaria v.

Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 419 (2023). This failure is dispositive of their claims for

both asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b);

Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020); Gonzalez-Medina

v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011).

2 24-2561 By failing to discuss the agency’s denial of CAT protection in their briefing,

Petitioners have also waived any challenge to the denial of that relief. See, e.g.,

Velasquez-Gaspar, 976 F.3d at 1065.

PETITION DENIED.

3 24-2561