FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 13 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN HERMES MEDRANO ROBAYO; No. 24-2993 YUDY CAROLINA HERNANDEZ PARRA; DAN JEREMY MEDRANO Agency Nos. HERNANDEZ; KILI ALI MEDRANO A220-754-768 HERNANDEZ; JHUSTHYN KUEL A220-754-769 MEDRANO HERNANDEZ, A220-754-770 A220-754-771 Petitioners, A220-556-869

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

JHUSTHYN KUEL MEDRANO No. 24-3022 HERNANDEZ, Agency No. Petitioner, A220-556-869

v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted June 11, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE, IKUTA, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

John Hermes Medrano Robayo, Yudy Carolina Hernandez Parra, Jhusthyn

Kuel Medrano Hernandez, Dan Jeremy Medrano Hernandez, and Kimi Ali

Medrano Hernandez, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of an

order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of a

final order of removal issued by an immigration judge (IJ). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.1

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioners did

not qualify for asylum or withholding of removal. The petitioners did not show

that their proposed particular social group (PSG) of “[n]urses and their families

from Colombia forced to medically treat government guerillas commonly known

as[] FARC dissidents,” was socially distinct. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,

1131–32, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016). The BIA concluded that nurses forced to

medically treat government guerillas were not a cognizable group in Colombian

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 Because the petitioners’ opening brief does not separately discuss Jhusthyn Medrano-Hernandez’s separate application for relief, the petitioners have forfeited any independent challenge to the agency’s decision regarding Jhusthyn Medrano-Hernandez. 2 society, because the proposed PSG did not possess “fundamental identifying

characteristics which cause such individuals to be perceived as a distinct social

group or groups by Colombian society.” Petitioners do not point to any evidence

that compels a different conclusion. Thus, substantial evidence supported the

BIA’s conclusion that the proposed PSG was “not cognizable.” See Conde

Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1243–44 (9th Cir. 2020).

Petitioners forfeited their challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination

regarding relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), namely, that the

petitioners would not likely face future torture by or with the acquiescence of the

Colombian government. Petitioners’ challenge to the agency’s conclusion

regarding CAT relief is little more than “a single sentence” and does not

“coherently develop[] the argument.” Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916

(9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).2

PETITION DENIED.

2 Regardless, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to CAT relief. The prior threats that the petitioners experienced, without physical harm, are insufficient to compel a contrary conclusion to that of the BIA. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1148 (9th Cir. 2021). 3