Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10664669
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Arroyo-Ocampo v. Bondi
No. 10664669 · Decided September 2, 2025
No. 10664669·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
September 2, 2025
Citation
No. 10664669
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 2 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DEL CARMEN ARROYO- No. 24-4877
OCAMPO; OSVALDO HERNANDEZ- Agency Nos.
ARROYO, A246-754-006
A246-754-010
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 18, 2025**
Portland, Oregon
Before: CALLAHAN and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and SNOW, District
Judge.***
*
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 G. Murray Snow, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Maria Del Carmen Arroyo-Ocampo and her minor child1 petition for review
of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal
from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioner’s
applications were based on telephone calls she and her husband received at their
home in a small town in Mexico. The calls were from men claiming to be members
of the Guerreros Unidos (“GU”) cartel and threatening to kill Petitioner and her
family absent a willingness to make unspecified payments. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
1. As to her CAT claim, Arroyo-Ocampo failed to exhaust the claim
because she did not meaningfully challenge the IJ’s denial of it before the BIA.
Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“Petitioner will .
. . be deemed to have exhausted only those issues [she] raised and argued in [her]
brief before the BIA.”). In her brief before the BIA, Arroyo-Ocampo offered no
argument challenging the IJ’s denial of her CAT protection claim beyond stating that
“the IJ failed to address the complete definition of ‘torture’ and undertook only a
selective and incomplete review of the Respondents’ claims by minimizing the
persecution they were subjected to and overlooking how that persecution escalated
1
Arroyo-Ocampo and her minor child filed the same application for relief. Thus,
for the purposes of this memorandum, we refer to Arroyo-Ocampo as the sole
petitioner.
2 24-4877
from extortion to threats of kidnapping.” This conclusory statement neither discusses
the “particular details” Arroyo-Ocampo contests nor provides “supporting
authority” for her assertion that the IJ failed to use the complete definition of torture.
See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 820 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Where a question
of law is presented, supporting authority should be included, and where the dispute
is on the facts, there should be a discussion of the particular details contested.”).
2. As to Arroyo-Ocampo’s application for asylum and withholding of
removal claims, Arroyo-Ocampo failed to exhaust any argument as to the IJ’s
dispositive determination that she had not met her burden to show the Mexican
government would be unable or unwilling to protect her from persecution by private
parties, as she did not put the BIA on notice of her challenging that finding. See Bare
v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation omitted) (Petitioner
must “put the BIA on notice of what was being challenged . . . [and] do more than
make a general challenge to the IJ’s decision.”). In her brief before the BIA, Arroyo-
Ocampo raised no argument related to this determination aside from the single
statement that she had “personal knowledge of the police reputation for non-
interference with cartel activities.” This single sentence did not sufficiently develop
her argument. See Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (finding
petitioner forfeited an issue when he raised it “only in a single sentence, and without
coherently developing the argument” (cleaned up)).
3 24-4877
PETITION DENIED.
4 24-4877
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 2 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 2 2025 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA DEL CARMEN ARROYO- No.
03On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 18, 2025** Portland, Oregon Before: CALLAHAN and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and SNOW, District Judge.*** * This disposition is not appropriate for publica
04** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 2 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Arroyo-Ocampo v. Bondi in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on September 2, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10664669 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.