Ayala v. Blanche

── Ayala v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERAL AYALA; MARCELA MORALES; No. 25-3878 M. M., Agency Nos. A243-086-919 Petitioners, A243-086-920 A243-086-921 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 14, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: RAWLINSON, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Geral Ayala, his wife, and his minor daughter (Petitioners), natives and citizens of Colombia, seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) order * 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). denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.1 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ayala and his family did not demonstrate harm rising to the level of persecution. See Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. ___, 2026 WL 598435, at *5 (Mar. 4, 2026) (holding that the substantial evidence standard applies to the agency’s persecution determination). Contrary to Petitioners’ assertion, the agency considered the incidents of harm cumulatively. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that “all the incidents” of harm should be considered cumulatively) (citation omitted). Over several years, Ayala experienced intermittent instances of harm from members of Fortaleza Leoparda Sur, a soccer fan club of which Ayala was a former member, and others. He was also beaten by the police as a teenager. None of these incidents involved “significant physical violence” or serious injuries that required medical treatment. Id. (citation omitted). Additionally, Ayala’s wife and daughter were never harmed. See id. at 1062 1 As Respondent asserts, Ayala does not challenge the agency’s determination that (1) he failed to demonstrate any past or feared future harm on account of his actual or imputed political opinion, and (2) his wife and daughter failed to establish such harm on account of their membership in the particular social group (PSG) “Immediate family of [Geral Ayala].” Therefore, Petitioners forfeited review of these issues. See Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 n.7 (9th Cir. 2023). 2 25-3878 (“Another recurring factor that arises in our cases is harms that have befallen a petitioner’s family members or close friends.”). Threats, while relevant, do not necessarily compel a finding of past persecution unless the threats, usually in combination with other mistreatment, “effect significant actual suffering or harm.” Id. (quoting Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003)). Ayala was threatened with death, but the threats were unaccompanied by physical violence. He described being assaulted three times, but he never required medical treatment. Id. at 1061. Thus, the record