Tzalam-Ical v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2025
• Docket: 23-1847
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGUEL ANGEL TZALAM-ICAL; et al., No. 23-1847 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A240-297-960 A240-297-959 v. A240-297-961 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.

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

Submitted March 17, 2025**

Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Angel Tzalam-Ical, Sabela Paau-Tox, and their minor daughter,

natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum and adult petitioners’

* 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). applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947

F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

As to asylum, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

petitioners failed to show they were or would be persecuted on account of a

protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (an

applicant must show that “persecution was or will be on account of his

membership in such group”) (emphasis in original). Because adult petitioners

failed to show any nexus to a protected ground, they also failed to satisfy the

standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351,

359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).

Petitioners’ contentions regarding imputed political opinion are not properly

before the court because petitioners did not raise them before the agency. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (administrative remedies must be exhausted); see also

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is not

jurisdictional).

We do not address petitioners’ contentions regarding the cognizability of

their proposed particular social group because the agency did not deny relief on

this ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)

2 23-1847 (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon

by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining

contentions regarding the merits of their 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).

Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim and adult petitioners’ withholding of

removal claims fail.

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

because adult petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in the opening brief

that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-

64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 23-1847