NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EMERSON VLADIMIR MAGANA- No. 17-72017

AGUILAR,

Agency No. A206-889-256 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 10, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: OWENS, VANDYKE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Concurrence by Judge VANDYKE.

Emerson Vladimir Magana-Aguilar is a native and citizen of El Salvador.

He petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for

* 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). asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the

petition.1

“When the BIA reviews the IJ’s decision de novo, ‘our review is limited to

the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’”

Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 974 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Garcia v. Wilkinson,

988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021)). We review legal questions de novo and

factual findings for substantial evidence. Perez-Portillo v. Garland, 56 F.4th 788,

792 (9th Cir. 2022). Substantial evidence is a “highly deferential” standard under

which “we must accept the BIA’s factual findings as ‘conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Salguero

Sosa v. Garland, 55 F.4th 1213, 1217–18 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Nasrallah v.

Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 584 (2020); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Magana-Aguilar

failed to establish a nexus between any past or future persecution and his asserted

particular social group of “[u]nmarried students who refuse to join gangs or

participate in crime and fear persecution including death from gang members and

police and government refuse to provide protection or cannot protect the

1 Magana-Aguilar does not challenge the denial of relief under CAT and has therefore forfeited this issue. See Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (as amended). 2 citizens[.]”Magana-Aguilar argues that “[h]e was specifically targeted as he went

to school and by a gang-affiliated classmate.” But these facts do not compel the

conclusion that a “central reason” or “a reason” Magana-Aguilar was harmed was

on account of his membership in his proposed particular social group. 8 U.S.C.

§§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(C).

Because this conclusion is dispositive of Magana-Aguilar’s petition, we do

not address the remainder of his claims.

PETITION DENIED.2

2 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 3

FILED

FEB 12 2026

Magana-Aguilar v. Bondi, No. 17-72017 VANDYKE, Circuit Judge, concurring: MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

For the reasons stated in Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi, 160 F.4th 991 (9th Cir.

2025) (per curiam)—and because Petitioner showed no likelihood of success on the

merits—I would not leave the temporary stay of removal in place.

1