Pereira de Araujo v. Bondi: Third-Party Threat Limits in Child Asylum Claims

A child’s fear based on threats to a parent’s former partner needs an explanation connecting those events to the child’s own risk. On January 23, 2026, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished memorandum disposition in Pereira de Araujo v. Bondi, denying a Brazilian citizen’s petition for review. Under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, this nonprecedential decision demonstrates how the agency’s factual findings survived review because the evidence did not compel a different result.

Record Facts and the Domestic Relationship

Joao Vitor Pereira de Araujo, a native and citizen of Brazil, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision rejecting his claims for asylum, withholding, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. His petition followed an earlier ruling denying the petition filed by his mother, which arose from the exact same underlying events, as documented in Pereira de Araujo v. Bondi.

The factual record centered on threats made by a loan shark in Brazil. The petitioner’s mother testified that the loan shark had threatened her former domestic partner. However, key record admissions undermined the claim of personal persecution: The loan shark never threatened the mother, never threatened the children, and inflicted no physical harm on anyone in the household. Furthermore, the child petitioner never personally encountered the loan shark. Prior to the appeal, the mother and the targeted domestic partner had separated, a circumstance the court considered when evaluating the claimed future danger.

Failure of Enterprise Evidence and Asylum Proof

Under the substantial evidence standard restated in Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit upheld the administrative finding that the petitioner lacked both past persecution and an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. The petitioner argued in his brief that the loan shark operated as part of a larger criminal enterprise with nationwide reach that could target his family after fleeing. The court examined the record and concluded that zero evidence supported those assertions. Because the domestic relationship had ended and no record evidence demonstrated that the loan shark retained the capacity or motivation to pursue the petitioner, the asylum claim failed.

Withholding of Removal and Torture Protection Standards

The failure to establish asylum fear determined the outcome of the petitioner’s withholding of removal claim. Citing Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021), which quotes INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429–30 (1984), the court noted that withholding requires showing a clear probability of persecution on account of a protected ground. Because the petitioner failed to satisfy the lower burden of reasonable fear for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher standard for withholding.

Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 834 (9th Cir. 2022), mandates proof that torture is more likely than not if removed, inflicted by or with the acquiescence of a public official. Under Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1217 (9th Cir. 2018), quoting Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1224 (9th Cir. 2005), torture is a more severe harm than persecution. On this record, the evidence that failed to establish the claimed future persecution also failed to establish a likelihood of torture. Additionally, the mother testified that she did not fear the police or government officials in Brazil, and the record lacked evidence supporting appellate claims of pervasive police corruption or missing witness protection programs.

The result and the separate SIJ question

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review while directing that the temporary judicial stay remain until the mandate issued; that historical direction does not establish current stay status. Significantly, the court included a clear procedural clarification: The denial of asylum, withholding, and Convention Against Torture claims has no bearing on the child petitioner’s eligibility for adjustment of status as a Special Immigrant Juvenile. When primary asylum claims relying on third-party threats collapse due to record deficiencies, noncitizens must evaluate whether independent relief pathways remain viable.