Uriostegui-Manjarrez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-5621
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS URIOSTEGUI-MANJARREZ, No. 24-5621 Agency No. Petitioner, A099-542-264 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of an Immigration Judge

Submitted March 17, 2025**

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

Jose Luis Uriostegui-Manjarrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro

se for review of an immigration judge’s order affirming an asylum officer’s

negative reasonable fear determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s reasonable fear

* 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). determination. Orozco Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021). We

deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Uriostegui-

Manjarrez failed to show a reasonable possibility that the harm he suffered or fears

was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904

F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2018) (no basis for withholding of removal where

petitioner did not show a nexus to a protected ground).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that

Uriostegui-Manjarrez failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-

Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (petitioner failed to

demonstrate government acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable

possibility of future torture).

Uriostegui-Manjarrez’s due process claim fails because he has not shown

error. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To

prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of

rights and prejudice.”)

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

The motion to stay removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 24-5621