Rodriguez Rios v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 10, 2026
• Docket: 24-4577
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUCIA RODRIGUEZ RIOS; REYNA No. 24-4577 GUADALUPE QUINTERO Agency Nos. RODRIGUEZ; ALEX MANUEL A208-308-824 QUINTERO RODRIGUEZ; JENIFFER A208-308-825 QUINTERO RODRIGUEZ, A208-308-827 A208-308-826 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 3, 2026** Portland, Oregon

Before: CHRISTEN, HURWITZ, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Lucia Rodriguez Rios is a native and citizen of Mexico. She petitions this

court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding

* 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). a decision by an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture

(CAT).1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and

arguments underlying this appeal, we do not detail them here. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We deny the petition.

“We review only the BIA’s opinion, except to the extent that it expressly

adopted portions of the IJ’s decision.” Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d

1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062,

1064 (9th Cir. 2020)). “We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal

and CAT claims for substantial evidence,” meaning “we must uphold the agency

determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-

Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).

1. An asylum applicant must establish that she has suffered persecution or

has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground and that

the persecution was or will be “committed by the government, or by forces that the

government was unable or unwilling to control.” Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592

F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). An applicant for

1 Rodriguez Rios’s minor children are derivative beneficiaries of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

2 24-4577 withholding of removal “must discharge this burden by a clear probability.” See

Sharma v. Garland, 9 F. 4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).

Rodriguez Rios argues that the agency’s conclusion that she had failed to

show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution was not

supported by substantial evidence. In particular, she argues that the agency failed

to consider Ramiro’s disappearance after La Plaza members threatened him as part

of the cumulative persecution analysis and dismissed the threats to Rodriguez Rios

and her children as merely “indirect threats” despite evidence that La Plaza was

willing to follow through with them.

Even if the agency’s persecution analysis was flawed, Rodriguez Rios failed

to challenge before the BIA the IJ’s adverse finding on the third prong of the

asylum and withholding analysis—that the government is unable or unwilling to

control La Plaza. In her opening brief to this court, Rodriguez Rios does not

challenge the IJ’s factual finding or contest the BIA’s conclusion that she had

forfeited the argument before the agency. Because the government has properly

raised the issue, which is dispositive of the asylum and withholding claims, we

deny the petition for review as to those claims without addressing the other two

prongs of the analysis. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th

Cir. 2013) (noting issues not argued in a party’s opening brief are forfeited).

3 24-4577 2. An applicant seeking CAT relief must “establish that it is more likely

than not that he or she would be tortured if removed,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), by

or with the acquiescence of public officials, 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). Here, the

agency’s decision to deny CAT protection was supported by substantial evidence.

Although the country conditions evidence shows that disappearances of individuals

in Mexico are sometimes carried out by or with the complicity of the State,

Rodriguez Rios did not present evidence that the State was complicit in or

acquiesced to the harms she and her family experienced. In fact, she stated that the

police arrested the shooter after the incident Ramiro witnessed, took Rodriguez

Rios’s report of Ramiro’s disappearance, and followed up with her to determine

whether an unidentified body might be Ramiro. We therefore deny the petition for

review as to the CAT claim.

PETITION DENIED.

4 24-4577