Santiago-Patinio v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 12, 2026
• Docket: 25-433
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT SANTIAGO-PATINIO, No. 25-433 Agency No. Petitioner, A201-580-638 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted January 8, 2026** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Robert Santiago-Patinio, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review

* 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 denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection for substantial

evidence. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). “Under

this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels

a contrary conclusion.” Id. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we

deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding of

removal. For both asylum and withholding of removal, Santiago-Patinio must

demonstrate that his persecution on a protected ground was “committed by the

government” or “by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.”

Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Bringas-

Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc)).

In this case, the agency permissibly concluded that Santiago-Patinio failed to

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

actors in Ecuador who would allegedly seek to harm him based on his sexual

orientation. Santiago-Patinio did not report to the authorities the alleged assaults from

his classmates, coworkers, or others. See Meza-Vazquez v. Garland, 993 F.3d 726,

730 (9th Cir. 2021) (the absence of a police report leaves “‘a gap in proof about how

the government would respond’ to the crime, and that gap must be filled in ‘by other

methods’ to show the government was unable or unwilling to act” (citation omitted)).

2 25-433 Santiago-Patinio also testified that he was aware of some occasions when the

Ecuadorian police investigated hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

The country conditions evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion. As the

agency noted, the government of Ecuador has instituted and enforces protections for

members of the LGBT community. While there are some reports of lax enforcement,

that evidence does not compel a different result. See, e.g., Singh v. Garland, 46 F.4th

1117, 1123 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[T]he BIA can draw its own conclusions from

contradictory and ambiguous country conditions reports.”).

2. Substantial evidence likewise supports the denial of CAT relief. To prevail

on his CAT claim, Santiago-Patinio must show that, “taking into account all possible

sources of torture, he is more likely than not to be tortured” if removed to

Ecuador. Velasquez-Samayoa v. Garland, 49 F.4th 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2022).

Torture is “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment,” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.18(a)(2), which is “inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or

acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting

in an official capacity,” id. § 1208.18(a)(1).

Santiago-Patinio makes the same arguments regarding CAT relief as he does

regarding asylum and withholding. For the reasons discussed above, substantial

evidence supports the agency’s finding that Santiago-Patinio failed to establish that

3 25-433 the Ecuadorian government would acquiesce to the torture he fears at the hands of

private actors.

PETITION DENIED.

4 25-433