Estela Serrano-Osorio v. Pamela Bondi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 5 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ESTELA SERRANO-OSORIO, No. 17-71552 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-928-703 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 3, 2025** Portland, Oregon Before: McKEOWN and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge.

Petitioner Estela Serrano-Osorio (“Serrano-Osorio”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) order affirming the immigration

* 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). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. judge’s (“IJ’s”) order 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. Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019). We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791–92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition.

1. The agency did not err in denying Serrano-Osorio’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. “To qualify for asylum and withholding of removal, a person who is outside the country of his or her nationality must establish that he is unable or unwilling to return to it ‘because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of’” one of five protected grounds.

Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). “An applicant may establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in two ways: by proving past persecution, or by demonstrating that he has a subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.”

Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citation modified).

First, the agency did not err in determining that Serrano-Osorio failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal based on past persecution. An applicant alleging past persecution has the burden of establishing,

2 17-71552 inter alia, that “the persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.” Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Serrano-Osorio failed to demonstrate that the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to protect her from her ex-partner’s domestic violence.

Serrano-Osorio testified that after going to the hospital in 2016 following the physical abuse she endured from her ex-partner, the treating physician provided her with documentation she could use to support a police report. She also testified that she believed the police would have arrested her ex-partner if she reported him. Petitioner’s evidence, country condition reports, and her testimony do not show that reporting her ex-partner to the police would have been futile. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (subjective belief that reporting would be futile, without more, does not compel finding of inability or unwillingness).

Second, the agency did not err in determining that Serrano-Osorio failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal based on fear of future persecution. “An applicant does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country, unless doing so would be unreasonable under the applicant’s circumstances.” Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 648 (9th Cir. 2021)

Serrano-Osorio’s testimony indicating that she believed the police would have arrested her ex-partner if she had reported him further supports the agency’s determination.

PETITION DENIED.2