Paulina Jesus-Pedro v. Pamela Bondi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAULINA JESUS-PEDRO; P.R., No. 15-73457 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-798-987 A206-798-988 v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 12, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: N.R. SMITH, NGUYEN, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Paulina Jesus-Pedro and her child (collectively, “Jesus-Pedro”) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and * 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). withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of asylum and withholding for substantial evidence, see Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021), and deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Jesus-Pedro was not persecuted or will face future persecution on account of being an indigenous Indian. Her fear of harm resulting from general “adverse country conditions [is] not sufficient evidence of past persecution.” Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1063. Likewise, while Jesus-Pedro testified that her family faced criminal violence, she did not show that she “was individually targeted on account of a protected ground rather than simply [being] the victim of generalized violence.” Id. Thus, she failed to show that she was persecuted or had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her race or ethnicity. 2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Jesus-Pedro’s fear of persecution was not on account of her “anti-crime” or “anti-gang” opinion. Although Jesus-Pedro argues that her “anti-crime” or “anti-gang” opinion is political in nature, “a general aversion to gangs does not constitute a political opinion for asylum purposes.” Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th 1 Jesus-Pedro raised a claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) below. Because Jesus-Pedro does not address this claim on appeal, she has forfeited any challenge to the BIA’s denial of her CAT claim. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). 2 Cir. 2008); Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1164–65 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding mere “opposition to organized crime” does not constitute a political opinion), overruled on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (en banc). Thus, because Jesus-Pedro “has not shown the existence of a political opinion,” she failed to show persecution on account of a political opinion. See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991). PETITION DENIED.2 2 The motion for a stay of removal, Dkt. No. 1, is denied. The temporary stay of removal is lifted. 3