Ferrer-Rodriguez v. Blanche

── Ferrer-Rodriguez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 22 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL FERRER-RODRIGUEZ; D. F.- No. 25-1161 M., Agency Nos. A240-181-833 Petitioners, A240-181-835 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 13, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and HAMILTON,*** Circuit Judges. Daniel Ferrer-Rodriguez (Ferrer-Rodriguez), a native of Venezuela and a citizen of Venezuela and Colombia, and his minor daughter, Daniellys Ferrer- * 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 F. Hamilton, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation. Maestre, a native and citizen of Colombia, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of a decision from an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying 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, and we deny the petition for review. Ferrer-Rodriguez sought asylum and withholding of removal based on his political opinion, as well as his membership in the particular social group of “Venezuelan army deserters.” He sought CAT protection on the basis that the Colombian government returns Venezuelan army deserters to Venezuela where they are tortured. “We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence. . . . Under the substantial evidence standard, administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. . . .” Ani v. Bondi, 155 F.4th 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2025) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. . . .” Myers v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 1101, 1113 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). “Because the [BIA] issued its own decision that adopted parts of the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions. . . .” Uc Encarnacion v. Bondi, 156 F.4th 927, 935 (9th 1 Daniellys Ferrer-Maestre is a derivative beneficiary. 2 25-1161 Cir. 2025) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “With respect to a person of dual nationality, it is insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in only one of the two countries. In other words, to receive asylum, a person of dual nationality must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in both countries . . .” Sung Kil Jang v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 1187, 1192 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).2 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Ferrer- Rodriguez is ineligible for relief from Venezuela because he is not a refugee, as he could safely return to Colombia. See Guevara-Serrano v. Bondi, 164 F.4th 1133, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2026) (defining “refugee” as “any person who is o