FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10590032
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Hernandez-Diaz v. Bondi

No. 10590032 · Decided May 22, 2025
No. 10590032 · Ninth Circuit · 2025 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
May 22, 2025
Citation
No. 10590032
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAQUEL ELIZETTE HERNANDEZ- No. 24-3355 DIAZ; ESTEVEN ROJAS-HERNANDEZ, Agency Nos. A208-990-759 Petitioners, A208-990-740 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 20, 2025** Pasadena, California Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Raquel Elizette Hernandez-Diaz and her minor child (“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal from an order of an immigration 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). (“IJ”) denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “In reviewing the BIA’s decisions, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021). We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence and must uphold them unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition. 1. The BIA determined that Petitioners did not meaningfully challenge the IJ’s findings that Hernandez-Diaz had not established past persecution in El Salvador or that Salvadoran authorities were unable or unwilling to protect her from persecution. The BIA thus concluded those arguments were waived. Before us, Petitioners fail to meaningfully contest the waiver determination.1 Thus, Petitioners have forfeited any argument that the BIA’s waiver determination was erroneous. See Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (deeming an issue forfeited, and declining to consider that issue, when not specifically and distinctly argued in the opening brief). 1 Petitioners also fail to meaningfully challenge the agency’s determination that Hernandez-Diaz did not establish that relocation within El Salvador to avoid future persecution is unreasonable or unsafe. Thus, this issue is also forfeited. See Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022). 2 24-3355 2. The agency’s denial of CAT relief is supported by substantial evidence. Hernandez-Diaz has not demonstrated “that it is more likely than not that [she] will face a particularized and non-speculative risk of torture.” Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). The country conditions evidence regarding the strength and sophistication of Salvadoran gangs and the corruption of the Salvadoran government is insufficient to compel the conclusion that Hernandez-Diaz would face torture in El Salvador. See Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 706–07 (9th Cir. 2022) (denying petition for review because country conditions evidence acknowledging “crime and police corruption in Mexico generally” did not demonstrate that the petitioner faced a “particularized, ongoing risk of future torture”). Hernandez-Diaz’s CAT claim is further undermined by the fact that she spent time in San Salvador without incident, as well as the fact that several of Hernandez-Diaz’s similarly-situated family members remain in El Salvador unharmed. See id. at 704–05 (finding that petitioner’s ability to safely relocate justified denial of CAT relief); Blandino- Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013) (denying CAT relief in part because the CAT applicant “had not presented evidence that similarly- situated individuals are being tortured”). 3 24-3355 PETITION DENIED.2 2 Petitioners’ Motion to Stay Removal (Dkt. No. 2) is denied as moot. The temporary stay (Dkt. No. 10) will dissolve when the mandate issues. 4 24-3355
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Hernandez-Diaz v. Bondi in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on May 22, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10590032 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 →