Vasquez Escobar v. Bondi - Immigration Review Denial

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH C IRCUIT No. 25-1470 CATALINA B. VASQ UEZ ESCOBAR; F.P.G.V., Petitioners, v. PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 2 6, 2026 Decided: March 2, 2026 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLE BAUM, Circuit Judge s, and FLOYD, Senior Circui t Judge. Petition denied by unp ublished per curiam op inion. ON BRIEF: Donald L. Schlemm er, Washington, D. C., Alireza Ghazi -Zahedi, Williamsburg, Virginia, for Petitioners. Brett A. Shumate, A ssistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assi stant Director, Mo nica G. Antoun, Offic e of Immigration Litig ation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DE PARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Catalina B. Vasquez Escobar and her minor so n, natives and citi zens of Guatemala, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeal s (Board) dismissing their appeal from the immigrati on judge’s decision d enying Vasquez Escobar’s applicatio ns 1 for asylum and withholding of removal. 2 We deny the petition for re view. We have reviewed the administrative record, i ncluding the transcript of the merits hearing and all supporting evidence, and considered the ar guments raised on appeal i n conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities. We conclude that the record evidence does not co mpel a ruling c ontrary to any of the operati ve factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that subst antial evidence supports th e immigration ju dge ’ s pivotal ruling s, affirmed by the Board, that V asquez Escobar (a) did not assert any claim of past persecution; and (b) advance d a fear of future persec ution that hinged exclusivel y on generalized conditi ons of gang violence an d unrest prevalent in Guatemala, wh ich “are insufficient to establish persecution on account of a protected gr ound, ” Tepas v. Garland, 73 F.4th 208, 218 (4th Cir. 2023) (citation modified). 1 Vasquez Escobar ’s minor son was a rider on her asylu m application, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3), and is ide ntified as a petitione r in this court by his initials. 2 Vasquez Escob ar has forfeited review of the immigration judge’s de nial of relief under the Convention Against Tort ure, which was not challenged in the administrative appeal, by not raising that issue in the brief s ubmitted to this court. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ullah v. Garland, 72 F.4 th 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2023) (explaining that a party forfeits appellate revie w of those issues a nd claims not raised in the party’s briefs).

3 Accordingly, we deny the petition for revi ew. See In re Vasquez Escobar (B.I.A. Apr. 4, 2025). We dispense with oral argumen t because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material s before this court and argume nt would not aid th e decisional process. PETITION DENIED