Martinez-Felix v. Bondi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MILITZA MARTINEZ-FELIX, No. 22-846 Agency No. Petitioner, A202-009-707 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona Before: HAWKINS, HURWITZ, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Militza Martinez-Felix seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal of the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Wilkinson v. * 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). Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 217 (2024). Where, as here, “the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the [IJ’s] reasoning, we review both decisions.” Tzompantzi- Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 702 (9th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). We deny the petition. Contrary to Martinez-Felix’s contention, the BIA did not engage in impermissible fact-finding when it observed that Martinez-Felix “indicated that she had family in Mexico she would be able to live with, which should help with her transition.” See Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 920–22 (9th Cir. 2012) (BIA’s discretionary judgment regarding how to weigh certain facts in connection with application for cancellation of removal does not amount to impermissible fact- finding). The record similarly does not support Martinez-Felix’s contention that the agency failed to consider certain testimony and country conditions evidence. The IJ stated that he reviewed all the evidence when rendering the decision, and Martinez- Felix has not overcome the presumption that the IJ did just that. See Cruz v. Bondi, 146 F.4th 730, 740–41 (9th Cir. 2025) (petitioner must overcome presumption that agency did review all evidence where the agency plainly stated it reviewed the record). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 22-846