Zelaya-Romero v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 23-3915
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARIXI MARBELY ZELAYA-ROMERO; No. 23-3915 RUTH IVETH CARRILLO-ZELAYA, Agency Nos. Petitioners, A215-937-180, A215-937-181 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.

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

Submitted December 3, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: RAWLINSON and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,*** District Judge.

Arixi Marbely Zelaya-Romero and her minor daughter (“Petitioners”), natives

and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of a decision of a Board of Immigration

* 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 Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s

(“IJ”) denial of Petitioners’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

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

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We deny the petition.

1. Petitioners have not properly challenged the BIA’s dispositive finding of

waiver regarding the asylum and withholding-of-removal claims. The BIA

dismissed Petitioners’ appeal because the BIA concluded that Petitioners had waived

any challenge to the IJ’s determination that Petitioners had failed to show either past

persecution or the inability to relocate internally. Because Petitioners do not

challenge the BIA’s waiver determination before this court, Petitioners have waived

any such challenge. See Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir.

1996) (finding that issues not addressed in an opening brief are waived). Petitioners

have also failed to exhaust any challenge to the IJ’s past persecution and internal

relocation findings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (“A court may review a final order

of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available

to the alien as of right”); see also Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir.

2019) (a petitioner is deemed “to have exhausted only those issues” that were “raised

and argued” before the BIA (quoting Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th

1 Zelaya-Romero’s daughter is a derivative beneficiary of Zelaya-Romero’s asylum application.

2 Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per curiam))). These procedural failures are dispositive of

Petitioners’ claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Akosung v. Barr,

970 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2020) (stating that asylum and withholding of removal

are unavailable if a petitioner could avoid persecution by relocating internally).

2. Petitioners have waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT

protection because Petitioners’ opening brief does not address the agency’s denial

of relief under the CAT. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259–60.

PETITION DENIED.2

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