Paulina Jesus-Pedro v. Pamela Bondi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAULINA JESUS-PEDRO; P.R., No. 15-73457

Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-798-987

A206-798-988 v. PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 12, 2026** San Francisco, California

Before: N.R. SMITH, NGUYEN, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Paulina Jesus-Pedro and her child (collectively, “Jesus-Pedro”) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of asylum and withholding for substantial evidence, see Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021), and deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Jesus-Pedro was not persecuted or will face future persecution on account of being an indigenous Indian. Her fear of harm resulting from general “adverse country conditions [is] not sufficient evidence of past persecution.” Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1063. Likewise, while Jesus-Pedro testified that her family faced criminal violence, she did not show that she “was individually targeted on account of a protected ground rather than simply [being] the victim of generalized violence.” Id. Thus, she failed to show that she was persecuted or had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her race or ethnicity.

2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Jesus-Pedro’s fear of persecution was not on account of her “anti-crime” or “anti-gang” opinion. Although Jesus-Pedro argues that her “anti-crime” or “anti-gang” opinion is political in nature, “a general aversion to gangs does not constitute a political opinion for asylum purposes.” Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008); Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1164–65 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding mere “opposition to organized crime” does not constitute a political opinion), overruled on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (en banc). Thus, because Jesus-Pedro “has not shown the existence of a political opinion,” she failed to show persecution on account of a political opinion. See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991).

PETITION DENIED.2