Edgar Batres-Alvarado v. Todd Blanche

── Edgar Batres-Alvarado v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 15 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS EDGAR AMADOR BATRES- No. 16-72280 ALVARADO; VICTORIA VILLEGAS- ACUNA; GALA VICTORIA BATRES- Agency Nos. A200-790-876 VILLEGAS, A200-790-877 A200-790-878 Petitioners, v. ORDER TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. Before: BENNETT and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, * District Judge. The memorandum disposition filed March 16, 2026, is hereby amended. The amended memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order. * The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDGAR AMADOR BATRES- No. 16-72280 ALVARADO; VICTORIA VILLEGAS- ACUNA; GALA VICTORIA BATRES- Agency Nos. A200-790-876 VILLEGAS, A200-790-877 A200-790-878 Petitioners, v. AMENDED MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 12, 2026** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: BENNETT and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, *** District Judge. Petitioner Edgar Amador Batres Alvarado and his wife and daughter, * 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 David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. Victoria Villegas Acuna and Gala Victoria Batres-Villegas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. To the extent the BIA “adopts or relies on the IJ’s reasoning,” we review both agency decisions. Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2019). The agency’s findings on internal relocation are reviewed for substantial evidence, Singh v. Bondi, 161 F.4th 560, 565 (9th Cir. 2025), and legal questions are reviewed de novo, Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). Under the “highly deferential substantial evidence standard . . . the agency’s findings of fact are considered ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id. (quoting Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022)). An applicant for asylum must show either that he “has suffered past persecution” or that he “has a well-foun