The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum decision Jan. 29, 2026, denying a petition for review filed by Maria Arriaga-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, who sought to overturn an immigration judge's denial of her applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
The case, *Maria Arriaga-Gutierrez v. Pamela Bondi*, was decided by a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Clifton, Bade, and Collins. The decision was not published and does not constitute precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Arriaga-Gutierrez had petitioned for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that dismissed her appeal from an immigration judge's denial of her applications. The case was assigned agency number A079-792-048 and court docket number 18-72210.
The Ninth Circuit applied the substantial evidence standard of review for denying claims for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protection. Under this standard, "administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary," the court wrote, citing *Zehatye v. Gonzales*, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006).
The court noted that it had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review the immigration court decisions but ultimately denied the petition without extensive analysis in the brief memorandum opinion.
According to the court record, the government argued that the petitioner had forfeited review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of her withholding claim, though the full details of this argument were not elaborated in the available portion of the decision.
Withholding of removal is a form of protection available to immigrants who can demonstrate that their life or freedom would be threatened in their home country on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The standard for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum, requiring applicants to show it is "more likely than not" they would face persecution if returned to their home country.
Convention Against Torture protection is available to individuals who can show they would more likely than not be tortured if removed to their home country. Unlike asylum and withholding of removal, CAT protection does not require the persecution to be on account of a protected characteristic.
The case was submitted to the panel Jan. 29, 2026, in San Francisco, California. The panel concluded unanimously that the case was suitable for decision without oral argument, as permitted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2).
The respondent in the case was listed as Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, reflecting the standard practice of naming the current Attorney General as the respondent in immigration cases regardless of when the underlying proceedings began.
This decision represents one of many immigration cases that come before the Ninth Circuit, which covers several states along the U.S.-Mexico border and handles a significant portion of the nation's immigration appeals. The circuit court regularly reviews decisions by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals regarding asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims.
The memorandum format indicates this was considered a routine case that did not require extensive written analysis or establish new legal precedent. Such decisions are common in immigration law, where many cases involve fact-specific determinations that do not raise novel legal issues.
The substantial evidence standard applied by the court is deferential to immigration judges' factual findings, making it challenging for petitioners to succeed on appeal unless they can demonstrate clear error in the lower court's analysis of the evidence.
For Arriaga-Gutierrez, the denial of her petition means the immigration judge's original decision stands, and she faces potential removal to Mexico. The case does not indicate whether she pursued any other forms of relief or whether removal proceedings will continue.
Immigration cases involving Mexican nationals frequently involve claims related to violence from drug cartels, domestic violence, or other forms of persecution. However, the specific facts underlying Arriaga-Gutierrez's claims for protection were not detailed in the available portion of the court's decision.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by immigrants seeking protection in U.S. courts, where success rates for asylum and withholding claims vary significantly based on factors including the specific immigration court, the country of origin, and the type of persecution claimed.