Rafael Guerrero Sierra v. Pamela Bondi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAFAEL GUERRERO SIERRA, No. 20-71313 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-301-748 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 10, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: H.A. THOMAS and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges, and VERA,*** District Judge.

Rafael David Guerrero Sierra, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his

* 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 Hernan Diego Vera, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

Where, as here, the BIA relies in part on the IJ’s decision, we review both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). We review legal determinations de novo and factual determinations for substantial evidence.2 See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023).

1. Substantial evidence supports the Agency’s determination that Guerrero Sierra did not establish a nexus between his past harm and membership in the particular social group of “Hondurans who take concrete steps to oppose gang membership and authority.” Guerrero Sierra testified that gang members targeted him because “[t]hey were looking for people to recruit” and “they wanted young people for their gang.” But he did not describe in that testimony any concrete steps he took before or during the attack. Although some evidence suggests that the gang

Guerrero Sierra seeks review of the Agency’s denial of his application for asylum based on a particular social group, but not its denial of his applications for asylum based on political opinion, withholding of removal, or CAT protection.

We cannot “review the record de novo” and “make [our] own independent determination on questions of law and fact,” as Guerrero Sierra asks us to do. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A), (B).

2. Guerrero Sierra also challenges the IJ’s determinations that the past harm he suffered in Honduras did not constitute past persecution and that the proposed particular social group is not cognizable. We decline to review these findings because our review of the IJ’s decision is limited to the grounds upon which the BIA relied, Iman, 972 F.3d at 1064, and the BIA did not reach this issue.3 PETITION DENIED.

Guerrero Sierra fails to meaningfully challenge the Agency’s finding that he had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution and therefore forfeits the issue. See Olea-Serefina v. Garland, 34 F.4th 856, 867 (9th Cir. 2022) (deeming forfeited an argument that was “purely conclusory and devoid of supporting factual detail or legal argument”).