Tampi-Arcos v. Blanche

── Tampi-Arcos v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIRTHA MARIA TAMPI-ARCOS; No. 25-5565 CARLOS ALFREDO HUAYTALLA- Agency Nos. TAMPI; A. N. H. T., A249-034-976 A245-542-054 Petitioners, A249-034-977 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 15, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: RAWLINSON, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Mirtha Maria Tampi-Arcos, Carlos Alfredo Huaytalla-Tampi, and Mirtha’s minor daughter (collectively, Petitioners) petition for review of the Board of * 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). Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We deny the petition. When “the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law,” instead of adopting the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ), “our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). “We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo.” Id. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision to deny Petitioners’ applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioners had the burden to establish “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). A “well-founded fear of [future] persecution” can be established “by proving past persecution, or by demonstrating that [the applicant] has a 1 The lead respondent is adult female Mirtha Maria Tampi-Arcos (A249-034-976). Her minor daughter, A. N. H. T. (A249-034-977), is a derivative beneficiary on her mother’s application. Ms. Tampi-Arcos’s adult son, Carlos Alfredo Huaytalla- Tampi (A245-542-054), “filed a separate application for relief and protection based upon the same factual predicate.” references to Petitioner in the singular are to the lead respondent. 2 24-4580 subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (cleaned up). The BIA properly dismissed Petitioners’ appeal, because Petitioners failed to establish that “the persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.” Id. (citation omitted). Ms. Tampi-Arcos reported the threatening incident to Peruvian police and received a “guarantee of life,” which Ms. Tampi-Arcos described as “like a protection order.” Ms. Tampi-Arcos did not report the names or addresses of the threatening individuals, nor was she able to provide t