Noel Martinez-Leyva v. Todd Blanche

── Noel Martinez-Leyva v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOEL DE JESUS MARTINEZ-LEYVA, No. 20-71060 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-158-375 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 9, 2026** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: BENNETT and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and HOLCOMB,*** District Judge. Petitioner Noel de Jesus Martinez-Leyva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order affirming an * 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). *** The Honorable John W. Holcomb, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility decisions, under the deferential substantial evidence standard.” Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). Under that standard, “[w]e may reverse factual determinations only when ‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary’ based on the evidence in the record.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). When, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision without issuing a separate opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency action. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2011). The IJ assessed the “totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors,” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (alteration omitted) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)), and concluded that Martinez-Leyva was not a credible witness. Based upon that determination, the IJ denied Martinez-Leyva’s claims. In arriving at that conclusion, the IJ identified material omissions, inconsistencies, and a lack of detail in Martinez-Leyva’s testimony and in his asylum application. The IJ explicitly relied on the following factors to support the adverse credibility determination: (1) Martinez-Leyva’s failure to include in his asylum application biographical information about his son who was born in the United 2 States, (2) inconsistencies between Martinez-Leyva’s testimony and his asylum application regarding his arrest and conviction in the United States and his entries into the United States prior to March 2016, (3) Martinez-Leyva’s failure to seek out the psychological evaluation recommended by the Durango attorney general’s office in Mexico and Martinez-Leyva’s explanation that he did not seek such care in the United States because he felt “calm” after arriving here, (4) the timing of Martinez- Leyva’s asylum application that he filed only after entering the United States, marrying his partner, and subsequently being arrested for domestic violence, and (5) Martinez-Leyva’s equivocal testimony when confronted with the October 2016 statement of an immigration officer that Martinez-Leyva claime