Sebastian-Rojo v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 5, 2025
• Docket: 24-89
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ALFREDO SEBASTIAN-ROJO, No. 24-89 Agency No. Petitioner, A097-340-360 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Jose Alfredo Sebastian-Rojo, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

* 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for

review.

The BIA did not err in its conclusion that Sebastian-Rojo waived any

challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determination that he did not establish a nexus to a

protected ground. See Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2019) (no

error in BIA’s waiver determination); see also Cui v. Garland, 13 F.4th 991, 999

n.6 (9th Cir. 2021) (issue raised in statement of the case but not in substantive

argument was forfeited). Thus, Sebastian-Rojo’s withholding of removal claim

fails.

The BIA did not err in its conclusion that Sebastian-Rojo waived any

challenge to the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim. See Alanniz, 924 F.3d at 1068-69;

Marinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Sebastian-Rojo’s remaining

contentions regarding his withholding of removal or CAT claims. See Simeonov v.

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required

to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.