Rivas-Monge v. Blanche

── Rivas-Monge v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DIEGO SAUL RIVAS-MONGE, No. 23-414 Agency No. Petitioner, A202-002-121 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 31, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: NGUYEN, MILLER, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Diego Saul Rivas-Monge, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an order of an immigration judge denying his applications for asylum, * 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). withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. “We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo,” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc), and we review its “factual findings underlying its determination that a petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT for substantial evidence,” Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 641–42 (9th Cir. 2021). Under the deferential substantial evidence standard, the agency’s findings of fact are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 1. Rivas-Monge challenges the Board’s finding that he did not experience persecution. Whether an applicant has established past persecution is reviewed for substantial evidence. Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 146 S. Ct. 845, 851 (2026). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Rivas-Monge failed to establish past persecution because his alleged harms were not so severe as to rise to the level of persecution. Rivas-Monge testified to three incidents of harm. The first occurred the day before a national election in March 2014. While wearing a shirt supporting the FMLN political party, he was stopped by two soldiers and a policeman and asked why he was a member of the FMLN. One of the men hit Rivas-Monge in the chest 2 23-414 and told him he had to vote for the opposing political party, ARENA. On election day, Rivas-Monge voted for the FMLN without incident. A few months later, Rivas-Monge was confronted by members of the 18th Street gang at the phone store where he worked. The gang members demanded that Rivas-Monge sell them phones with chips registered under other people’s names. When Rivas-Monge refused, the gang told him he “was in their eyesight” because he had not voted for ARENA in the election. Later that month, Rivas-Monge was stopped by two gang members who asked him again to activate phones for them. When Rivas-Monge refused, the gang members put him in a car and took him to a house where they hit his eye and knee and stole his computer. The gang members told him that since he had not helped them get the phones, he had to join the gang. Rivas-Monge sought medical care and received three sti