Villalta Climaco v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 24, 2025
• Docket: 24-1136
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ALBERTO VILLALTA CLIMACO, No. 24-1136 REINA LETICIA CRUZ REYES, JOSE MIGUEL VILLALTA CRUZ, Agency Nos. A220-795-894 Petitioners, A220-795-895 A220-795-896 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 6, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, MILLER, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Jose Alberto Villalta Climaco (Villalta Climaco), a native and citizen of El

Salvador, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying

* 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). his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We deny the petition.

When the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, we review both the BIA’s decision

and the IJ’s decision. See Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 32 F.4th 794, 800 (9th Cir.

2022). We review factual findings under the deferential standard of substantial

evidence, i.e., only “evidence [that] compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s”

warrants granting a petition for review. Singh v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 1142, 1148 (9th

Cir. 2025) (citation omitted).

1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Villalta Climaco’s asylum

and withholding of removal claims on the basis that he did not establish the

Salvadoran government is unwilling or unable to protect him. Salvadoran

authorities “arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated the gang members who

assaulted” Villalta Climaco, indicating their willingness and ability to protect

victims of crime. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005)

(concluding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate government acquiescence

when the police took reports regarding the petitioner’s complaint and investigated

the threats he reported).

2. To receive relief under the CAT, a petitioner must establish that (1) “it

is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed,” Hernandez v.

1 Villalta Climaco’s wife and son were derivative beneficiaries on his application.

2 24-1136 Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 768-69 (9th Cir. 2022), and (2) “that [the] torture [would]

be inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a

public official or other person acting in official capacity.” Edgar G.C. v. Bondi,

136 F.4th 832, 845 (9th Cir. 2025), as amended. “All evidence relevant to the

probability of future torture must be considered, including . . . country conditions.”

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 361 (9th Cir. 2017) (footnote reference

omitted). The threat of torture must be “particularized.” Gutierrez v. Garland, 106

F.4th 866, 880 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Villalta

Climaco did not establish a particularized threat of torture. Villalta Climaco failed

to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to El

Salvador, or that Salvadoran officials would acquiesce to his torture. The BIA

observed that the evidence in the record “describes conditions of general violence,

strife, and crime in El Salvador,” rather than a threat of torture directed toward

Villalta Climaco in particular. See Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir.

2023) (“The record must show that it is more likely than not that the petitioner will

face a particularized and non-speculative risk of torture.”); see also Flores-Vega v.

Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019) (observing that “generalized evidence of

violence and crime” in a country “is insufficient to meet the CAT standard”)

(citation and alteration omitted).

3 24-1136 PETITION DENIED.

4 24-1136