Zavala-Luna: Unchallenged Dispositive Findings Defeated the Immigration Appeal

In an unpublished memorandum under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, Zavala-Luna v. Bondi, No. 17-71103 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026), the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review brought by a mother, her minor son, and her daughter. The court held that an applicant’s failure to challenge independent dispositive findings in an appellate brief forecloses immigration relief, making it unnecessary to resolve contested social group or nexus arguments.

Procedural Posture and Immigration Judge Findings

The lead applicant filed for asylum, naming her minor son as a derivative, while her daughter submitted a separate application based on the mother’s alleged mistreatment in Mexico. The Immigration Judge denied asylum and statutory withholding on grounds including insufficient severity of the claimed harm, lack of nexus, failure to show that Mexican officials were unwilling or unable to protect the applicants, and internal relocation. The judge also denied protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The later appellate briefing needed to address that distinct CAT determination as well as the grounds for asylum and withholding.

Omission of Dispositive Issues Before the Board and the Ninth Circuit

On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the lead applicant argued solely that she established membership in a particular social group. The Board dismissed the appeal based on the unchallenged dispositive determinations. Before the Ninth Circuit, the petitioners again raised social group membership and attempted to challenge nexus for the first time.

The unchallenged findings controlled the result

The Ninth Circuit declined to address social group validity or whether the new nexus argument was barred by administrative exhaustion under Shen v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1144 (9th Cir. 2024). Applying Asarco LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 866 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017), the court held that unbriefed issues are abandoned. Because the petitioners failed to challenge the findings on persecution severity and government protection, their asylum and statutory withholding claims were foreclosed under Singh v. Garland, 57 F.4th 643 (9th Cir. 2023). The court also upheld the denial of CAT relief because the petitioners omitted all torture findings from their appellate brief. Zavala-Luna, memorandum, page 3.

Practical Consequence for Immigration Appeals

An appeal needs to confront each independent ground that sustains the adverse result. Here, even success on the disputed social-group issue would have left the unchallenged severity and government-protection findings in place. Compare the actual findings with the arguments made at each stage, including the separate CAT ruling.