Wayner Cano-Cardona v. Todd Blanche

── Wayner Cano-Cardona v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WAYNER BAUDILIO CANO-CARDONA, No. 20-71270 20-73212 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-197-151 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 31, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Wayner Cano-Cardona, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board first dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his applications * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and later denied his motion to reopen. Additionally, Cano-Cardona seeks a remand so that he may apply for voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petitions and the request for remand. We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas- Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Substantial evidence supports a factual finding unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary” based on the evidence in the record. Id. (quoting Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014)); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 32 F.4th 794, 800 (9th Cir. 2022). 1. Cano-Cardona contends that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings because his initial notice to appear did not specify the time and place of the removal hearing. Our precedent forecloses that argument. United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1190–93 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc). 2. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Cano-Cardona’s burden was to show that he faces persecution on account of a protected ground that is, for asylum, “one central reason,” and for withholding, “a reason,” for the past or feared persecution. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021); see 8 U.S.C. 2 §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(C). The Board sustained the immigration judge’s findings that when gang members tried to recruit Cano-Cardona, “the motive of the gang was criminal” rather than Cano-Cardona’s “membership in the Cano-Cardona family” or his “anti-gang political opinion.” The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. The gang members who attempted to recruit Cano-Cardona also attempted to recruit his friends and did not single out Cano-Cardona based on his family membership. Cano-Cardona identifies no evidence in the record suggesting that the gang members were aware of or acted on any political opinion held by him. At most, he establishes a fear of “random violence by gang members,” which “bears no nexus to a protected ground” and does not support a finding of persecution. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 20