Orellana Rivas v. Bondi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANA BEATRIZ ORELLANA RIVAS; et No. 21-690 al.,* Agency No. A209-978-947 Petitioners, A209-978-948 v. MEMORANDUM** PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 12, 2025*** Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Ana Beatriz Orellana Rivas and her child, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order * The clerk will update the docket to include A. J. C. O., A209-978-948, as a petitioner. ** 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). dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and denying Orellana Rivas’s applications for withholding of removal 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 and it is dispositive of petitioners’ asylum claim, and Orellana Rivas’s withholding of removal claim. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Therefore, we do not address petitioners’ arguments in the opening brief regarding the merits of the asylum and withholding claims. Orellana Rivas also does not challenge the agency’s determination that she failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. Therefore, the CAT claim also fails. Id. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 21-690