NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCO ANTONIO PINDTER-BONILLA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-70079 

Agency No. A205-299-907 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2018

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and TEILBORG,** District 

Judge.

Marco Antonio Pindter-Bonilla, a native of Mexico and citizen of both 

Mexico and Nicaragua, appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 

dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable James A. Teilborg, United States District Judge for the 

District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

FILED

APR 25 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and 

we deny Pindter-Bonilla’s petition for review.

As to withholding of removal based on past persecution in Mexico, substantial 

evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Pindter-Bonilla’s kidnappers were not 

motivated by his status as a Central American migrant. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 

F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Instead, the kidnappers’ phone call to PindterBonilla’s family member indicates the kidnappers’ motives were rooted in financial 

gain. Although the IJ and BIA did not apply the “a reason” standard articulated in 

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017), this error does not 

require remand because the IJ and BIA concluded that a protected ground was not a 

reason at all—versus one of many reasons—for the past persecution. Substantial 

evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Pindter-Bonilla did not establish a 

clear probability of future persecution. In particular, Mexico has passed 

comprehensive migrant laws and there was otherwise no evidence Pindter-Bonilla 

was at an individualized risk of future persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 

1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009).

Similarly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that PindterBonilla did not establish a clear probability of future persecution in Nicaragua. 

Pindter-Bonilla fears persecution in Nicaragua based on the possibility others will 
3 

impute his mother’s anti-Sandinista government opinions to him. However, PindterBonilla cites no evidence that places him at an individualized risk of future 

persecution. Moreover, his family members—who previously fled Nicaragua due 

to their own anti-Sandinista political views—have returned to Nicaragua without 

harm.1 See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(recognizing that ongoing family safety may mitigate a well-founded fear of future 

persecution).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief for both 

Mexico and Nicaragua because there is no specific evidence that Pindter-Bonilla 

will be subject to a “particularized threat of torture” upon his return to either 

country. Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). Rather, PindterBonilla’s reliance on his membership in disfavored groups is insufficient to warrant 

CAT relief.

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.

 

1 Pindter-Bonilla also argues he is a member of a disfavored group 

comprised of individuals with drug-related convictions and fears persecution in both 

Mexico and Nicaragua on this basis. Pindter-Bonilla did not present this argument 

to the BIA, and the BIA did not address this theory for relief. Thus, we lack 

jurisdiction over this claim. See Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 907–08 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(“Failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust 

remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear 

the matter.”).