Orrego Prieto v. Bondi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NATALY ORREGO PRIETO; et al., No. 25-2796 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A246-293-847 A246-293-848 v. A246-293-849 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2025** Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Nataly Orrego Prieto and her children, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and Orrego Prieto’s applications for 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. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to show they were or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails. Because Orrego Prieto failed to show any nexus to a protected ground, she also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Orrego Prieto 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 Colombia. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 2 25-2796 The motion to stay removal is otherwise denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 25-2796