Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10636429
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Coreas-De Morales v. Bondi
No. 10636429 · Decided July 18, 2025
No. 10636429·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 18, 2025
Citation
No. 10636429
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA EMELINDA COREAS-DE No. 23-922
MORALES; JORGE ALFREDO Agency Nos.
MORALES-COREAS; J.A. MORALES- A208-289-905
HENRIQUEZ; TELMA VANESSA A208-289-906
MORALES COREAS,
A208-289-753
A208-289-769
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 14, 2025**
Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Pro se petitioners Rosa Emelinda Coreas-De Morales, her husband, her
minor son, and her adult daughter seek review of the 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).
Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of their claims for asylum and withholding of removal, and request remand
to the agency to consider their eligibility for post-conclusion voluntary departure.
Each petitioner has filed a separate I-589 application; the husband and children are
also derivative beneficiaries of Coreas’s 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. The agency determined that the petitioners had not established that the
government of El Salvador would be unwilling or unable to protect them from their
persecutors based on both country conditions evidence and the petitioners’ failure
to report the incidents to the police. Although reporting is not an essential element
to establish that government is unwilling or unable to control attackers,
Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 921 (9th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other
grounds by Bringas-Rodriguez, 850 F.3d at 1069–70, courts do “consider whether
an applicant reported the incidents to police, because in such cases a report of this
2 23-922
nature may show governmental inability to control the actors.” Baballah v.
Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1078 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, petitioners claim they did not
report the assault and threats because they were believed it would be futile.
However, the failure to report based on the subjective belief of futility is, on its
own, insufficient to establish the government’s inability or unwillingness to control
a persecutor. Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
Petitioners’ claim for post-conclusion voluntary departure is denied as
unexhausted. A final order of removal is reviewable only if petitioners have
“exhausted all administrative remedies available . . . as of right.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1). The exhaustion requirement is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing
rule that must be enforced if properly raised. Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S.
411, 417–19 (2023). Although this court has held that Posos-Sanchez was
intervening law which “newly recognized the impact of an incomplete NTA on
establishing eligibility for voluntary departure,” Gonazalez-Lara v. Garland, 104
F.4th 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2024), Posos-Sanchez was published on July 7, 2021,
and the BIA did not issue its decision on petitioners’ claims until 2023. Petitioners
could have filed a notice of supplemental authority and did not. Nor did they file a
motion to remand or a motion to reopen with the BIA based on their putative
eligibility for voluntary departure. Consequently, they failed to exhaust their claim.
PETITION DENIED.
3 23-922
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2025 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSA EMELINDA COREAS-DE No.