Useche-Torres v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-4130
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIMMY USECHE-TORRES; KAREN No. 24-4130 DAYANA USECHE-BUSTOS; EDITH Agency Nos. JHOJANA BUSTOS-VARGAS; E. U.-B., A246-915-255 A241-016-438 Petitioners, A246-915-256 A246-915-257 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 21, 2025** San Jose, California

Before: SCHROEDER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and SCHREIER, District Judge.***

Jimmy Useche-Torres, Edith Jhojana Bustos-Vargas, and their two

* 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 Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. children—all natives and citizens of Colombia—petition for review of a decision

by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial by an

immigration judge (“IJ”) of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

The IJ, in a thorough opinion, summarized the record and explained his

decision with an appropriate discussion of each issue. Despite expressing some

doubts about Petitioner Bustos-Vargas’s testimony, the IJ did not make any

negative credibility findings.

1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioners did not

suffer past harm amounting to persecution, as well as the conclusion that

Petitioners had not demonstrated the government was unable or unwilling to

control the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (“FARC”). See

Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060-62 (9th Cir. 2021); Bringas-Rodriguez v.

Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Petitioners lived in

Bogota, Colombia, for many years without serious problems. The IJ took into

account testimony of violent incidents involving members of Petitioners’ families,

1 Each petitioner submitted a separate application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. Their applications are largely based on the same facts contained in Petitioner Useche-Torres’s application. Petitioners Useche- Torres and Bustos-Vargas also seek asylum as derivative beneficiaries of each other, and their children seek asylum as derivative beneficiaries of both parents.

2 24-4130 but noted that no physical harm had come to Petitioners. Because the IJ’s decision

itself effectively addressed the matters Petitioners raised to the BIA, there was no

error in the BIA’s adoption of the IJ’s opinion on appeal. See Abebe v. Gonzales,

432 F.3d 1037, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

2. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Petitioners

are not entitled to relief under CAT. See Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840

(9th Cir. 2021). As the IJ explained, the record does not establish that Petitioners

experienced torture in the past, and their fears of future torture were speculative.

Petition DENIED.2

2 The temporary stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues.

3 24-4130