NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTHA ELIZABETH JIMENEZ- No. 24-2534 GUZMAN; SAMUEL ANDRES DIAZ- Agency Nos. JIMENEZ, A241-814-257

A241-814-258

Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2025** Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

On behalf of herself and her minor son, Martha Elizabeth Jimenez-Guzman, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions pro se for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from the decision of

*

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). an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, 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, Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and deny the petition for review.

Jimenez-Guzman first challenges the IJ’s findings regarding her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioners generally must exhaust their claims, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), and we must enforce the exhaustion rule when the government properly raises it, see Suate-Orellana v. Garland, 101 F.4th 624, 629 (9th Cir. 2024). Jimenez-Guzman could have raised her challenges to the IJ’s findings in her appeal to the BIA but failed to do so. Therefore, we do not consider them here. See Sanchez-Cruz v. I.N.S., 255 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2001).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Jimenez-Guzman failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not she will be tortured if returned to Colombia. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

We decline to consider any arguments not distinctly and specifically raised in Jimenez-Guzman’s brief. Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 24-2534