Staicu v. Bondi

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 2, 2026
Docket25-2328
StatusUnpublished

This text of Staicu v. Bondi (Staicu v. Bondi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Staicu v. Bondi, (9th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SORIN FLORIN STAICU; DARIA No. 25-2328 FLORENTI STAICU; MARIA MIRELA Agency Nos. STAICU, A240-594-008 A240-594-006 Petitioners, A240-594-007 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 2, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: R. NELSON, COLLINS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Sorin Florin Staicu (“Staicu”) seeks review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s denial of Staicu’s

* 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). application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture

relief.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

Staicu’s single brief in this court merely recites legal standards and contains

no analysis or argument challenging the agency’s findings in this case. Because the

only case-specific contentions in Staicu’s brief are “purely conclusory and devoid of

supporting factual detail or legal argument,” we deem any challenge to the agency’s

findings and final order of removal to have been forfeited. Olea‑Serefina v. Garland,

34 F.4th 856, 867 (9th Cir. 2022).

PETITION DENIED.

1 Staicu’s wife and minor child did not file separate applications for relief and were instead listed as derivative beneficiaries on Staicu’s application for asylum. See Ali v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780, 782 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that, unlike asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture “may not be derivative”).

2 25-2328

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Staicu v. Bondi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staicu-v-bondi-ca9-2026.