Santana Saavedra Valdez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 25-2955
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAXIMILIANO SANTANA SAAVEDRA No. 25-2955 VALDEZ, Agency No. A240-396-144 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 15, 2025**

Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Maximiliano Santana Saavedra Valdez, a native and citizen of Brazil,

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

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his

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

* 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). Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. 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.

Santana Saavedra Valdez does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that he

waived review of the IJ’s dispositive determinations that he did not demonstrate an

exception to the one-year filing deadline to qualify for asylum, and that he did not

establish good moral character required for cancellation of removal, so we do not

address these issues. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th

Cir. 2013).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Santana

Saavedra Valdez failed to show he was or would be persecuted on account of a

protected ground. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1195 (9th Cir. 2007)

(“Ordinary prosecution for criminal activity is generally not a ground for relief.”);

see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s

“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random

violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Santana

Saavedra Valdez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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

because Santana Saavedra Valdez failed to show it is more likely than not he will

2 25-2955 be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Brazil. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no

likelihood of torture).

Santana Saavedra Valdez’s filing (Docket Entry No. 7) on May 28, 2025,

appears to be a request for a bond redetermination hearing directed at the

Executive Office for Immigration Review. The filing does not appear to seek any

relief available from this court, so the court will take no action on it. See Leonardo

v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (eligible detainees may seek a

bond hearing from an IJ, appeal to the BIA, and then seek review of the

determination by filing a habeas corpus petition in district court).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 25-2955