Veloso v. Bondi

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAYLE MARTINS VELOSO; G.A. No. 24-5696 VELOSO; FLAVIA RODRIGUES ALVES Agency Nos. VELOSO; H.A. VELOSO, A209-400-735 A209-400-736 Petitioners, A209-400-928 A209-400-929 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted August 14, 2025** Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Rayles Martins Veloso, a native and citizen of Brazil, seeks

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from

* 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). an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 Veloso is the

lead applicant. His wife and two minor children are derivative beneficiaries of his

application for asylum. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we need not

recount them here.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our review is limited to the

BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.

Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012). We review legal

conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-

Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding

of removal because the record does not compel the conclusion that Veloso faced

past persecution or likely faces future persecution. Threats in person and over the

phone, without corresponding acts of violence, do not compel a finding of past

persecution. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).

Veloso received several threatening phone calls from drug traffickers and a loan

shark and was visited once by the loan shark. However, the threats and the visit

were not accompanied by violence or near-violence. Although, as in Duran-

1 The court has issued a show-cause order to Adolfo Ojeda-Casimiro, counsel for Veloso, based on the poor quality of his briefing in this matter. See Order to Show Case, In re Adolfo Ojeda-Casimiro, Esq. (Aug. 20, 2025) (No. 25-5260).

2 24-5696 Rodriguez, it “may have been possible for the IJ to conclude that the threats were

sufficiently serious and credible to rise to the level of persecution, we cannot say

the evidence compels that conclusion.” Id. at 1028 (emphasis in original).

Because Veloso did not establish past persecution, he does not benefit from

a rebuttable presumption of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). Nor has

he “show[n] both a subjective fear of future persecution, as well as an objectively

‘reasonable possibility’ of persecution upon return to the country in question.”

Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029 (quoting Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400

F.3d 1185, 1190 (9th Cir. 2005)). Veloso has not identified any evidence

establishing a well-founded fear of future persecution or otherwise responded to

the BIA’s conclusion that he forfeited arguments related to future persecution by

failing to raise them to the BIA.

Veloso has presented no argument on, or evidence for, his eligibility for

CAT protection. Consequently, he has forfeited the argument by failing to develop

it. See Olea-Serefina v. Garland, 34 F.4th 856, 867 (9th Cir. 2022); see also

Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 959 (9th Cir. 2021).

Veloso newly asserts that he may be eligible for humanitarian asylum.

However, Veloso did not raise his eligibility for humanitarian asylum before the

agency and has therefore failed to exhaust the issue. See Iraheta-Martinez, 12 F.4th

at 948; Santos Zacarias v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417–19 (2023).

3 24-5696 PETITION DENIED.

4 24-5696