NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 28 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGEL ALMANZA-ADAME I, No. 24-4117 Agency No. Petitioner, A208-612-256 v.

MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 21, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: CLIFTON, BYBEE, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Angel Almanza-Adame, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed

Almanza-Adame’s appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his

* 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). applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We review the agency’s denials of the requested relief under the substantial

evidence standard. The agency’s denials are “conclusive unless any reasonable

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Flores Molina v.

Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).

We deny Almanza-Adame’s petition.

1. Substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that

Almanza-Adame was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because he

failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus between his fear of persecution and a

protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).

Almanza-Adame asserts that the harms his extended family members have

suffered at the hands of unidentified criminals were sufficient to show his own past

persecution and his well-founded fear of future persecution. He seeks asylum and

withholding of removal based upon his membership in the particular social groups

of “family members of Angel Almanza Adame” and “immediate family members

of Angel Almanza Adame.”

Almanza-Adame’s argument fails because the past harms inflicted on his

family members were not directed at or otherwise closely tied to him. Harm to

family members can support claims of past persecution or a well-founded fear of

2 24-4117 future persecution, but the harms must have been “closely tied to” the applicant.

Arriaga-Barrientos v. I.N.S, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Sumolang

v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2013) (granting petition in part where

record showed that harms inflicted on infant daughter were “designed to send a

message” to petitioner mother). In other words, the persecution must have been

“on account of” membership in the family group. See Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d

1014, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004) (granting petition where record showed that “the

Chinese government was inclined to go to extraordinary lengths to punish

[petitioner’s] family” and “it had identified him personally”).

Almanza-Adame did not present any evidence to suggest that the harms his

extended family suffered were in any way connected to him or motivated by

animus towards the family as a whole. Rather, the record shows that Almanza-

Adame had little to no contact with many of the relatives he identified and does not

indicate that the crimes committed against them were related to him. Almanza-

Adame testified that he could not remember the names of several of his relatives

who were victimized. He expressed fear about returning to Mexico because of the

high level of crime there, but did not offer any testimony that explained why his

family in particular would be targeted. Nothing in the record compels us to reverse

the BIA and IJ’s determination that the harms in question were consistent with

random crime motivated by greed or private vendettas and did not amount to

3 24-4117 persecution of Almanza-Adame on account of his family membership. See Zetino

v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).

Because Almanza-Adame has not established eligibility for asylum, it

follows that he has also failed to meet the standard required for withholding of

removal. Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288 (9th Cir. 2008).

2. Almanza-Adame has waived review of the BIA and IJ’s determination

that he was not eligible for CAT protection by failing to raise the issue in his

opening brief. Issues on appeal not discussed in the opening brief are deemed

waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

4 24-4117