Melkyn Estrada-Aguado v. Merrick Garland, 19-72222

Petitioners: Melkyn S. Estrada-Aguado, his wife, and three minor children — Nicaraguan nationals — appealed the BIA’s dismissal of IJ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
Procedural posture: IJ denied all relief; BIA dismissed the appeal; Ninth Circuit review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 for substantial evidence.
Adults’ asylum timeliness: Petitioners did not contest the BIA’s finding that the two adult petitioners waived any challenge to the IJ’s conclusion that asylum was time-barred.
Minors’ asylum: The agency found the harms experienced by the three minors did not constitute past persecution and that their fear of future persecution on account of actual or imputed political opinion was not objectively reasonable.
Withholding of removal: Because the minors failed to establish asylum eligibility, they also failed to meet the higher standard for withholding; the two adults likewise failed to show a clear probability of persecution.
CAT relief: The agency reasonably concluded petitioners did not show it was more likely than not they would be tortured with government consent or acquiescence if returned to Nicaragua. The BIA permissibly declined to reach an alternative adverse credibility ruling.

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Govt/BIA Argument	Held
Timeliness of adults' asylum	Adults argued their asylum claims should be considered despite delay	BIA/IJ found asylum time-barred; petitioners waived challenge	Waiver: petitioners did not contest on appeal; waived
Asylum for minors — past persecution	Minors argued suffered harm rising to persecution	Agency: harm was economic/insufficient for persecution	Denied: substantial evidence supports no past persecution
Asylum for minors — future fear/nexus	Minors argued objective fear of harm tied to political opinion	Agency: fear speculative; no established nexus	Denied: fear too speculative; no objective reasonable fear
Withholding of removal (minors)	Derivative withholding from asylum eligibility	Withholding requires higher clear-probability showing	Denied: failure to meet asylum means no withholding eligibility
Withholding of removal (adults)	Adults argued risk of future persecution	Agency found no clear probability of persecution	Denied: substantial evidence supports denial
CAT relief	Petitioners argued risk of torture upon return	Agency: petitioners failed to show government consent/acquiescence or more likely-than-not risk	Denied: substantial evidence supports CAT denial
BIA refusal to reach IJ alternative adverse-credibility finding	Petitioners contended BIA erred by not addressing the alternative finding	BIA not required to decide unnecessary issues	No error: BIA permissibly declined to reach unnecessary alternative

Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for agency factual findings)
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)
Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2004) (economic disadvantage alone is not persecution)
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (speculative possibility of future persecution insufficient)
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (asylum findings and effect on withholding)
Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2004) (clear-probability standard for withholding)
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (CAT: government consent/acquiescence required)
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts/agencies need not decide unnecessary issues)
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2014) (de novo review for due-process claims in immigration proceedings)