FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10633832
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Gave Lujan v. Bondi

No. 10633832 · Decided July 16, 2025
No. 10633832 · 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 16, 2025
Citation
No. 10633832
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RENZO ALEXANDER GAVE LUJAN; et No. 24-7697 al., Agency Nos. A241-899-023 Petitioners, A241-899-026 A241-899-025 v. A241-899-024 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* 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. Renzo Alexander Gave Lujan, Zedy Greyz Gamarra Manrique, and their two minor children, natives and citizens of Peru, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, * 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). and protection under the Convention Against 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 deny the petition for review. Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s adverse credibility determination in their opening brief and have thus forfeited any such argument. See Lopez- Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). In the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claims because their claims were based on the same evidence found not credible, and petitioners do not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Peru. See id. at 1156-57. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 24-7697
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Gave Lujan v. Bondi in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 16, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10633832 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →