Vitela Rocha v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-7122
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN MANUEL VITELA ROCHA, No. 24-7122 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-538-899 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 15, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Juan Manuel Vitela Rocha, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying his applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

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

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149,

1157 (9th Cir. 2019). We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vitela Rocha

failed to show he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.

See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire

to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by

gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). The BIA did not err in

declining to consider proposed particular social groups that were raised for the first

time to the BIA. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (BIA

did not err in declining to consider argument raised for the first time on appeal).

Thus, Vitela Rocha’s asylum claim fails.

The BIA did not err in its conclusion that Vitela Rocha waived any

challenge to the IJ’s denial of his withholding of removal and CAT claims. See

Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2019) (no error in BIA’s waiver

determination).

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 24-7122