Lopez Alfaro v. Blanche

── Lopez Alfaro v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 22 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CRISTIAN ANTONIO LOPEZ ALFARO, No. 25-1828 Agency No. Petitioner, A209-142-332 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 12, 2026 San Francisco, California Before: N.R. SMITH, NGUYEN, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Partial Dissent by Judge N.R. SMITH. Petitioner Christian Antonio Lopez Alfaro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning and adds its own analysis, we review both * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. agency decisions. Aleman-Belloso v. Bondi, 128 F.4th 1031, 1039 (9th Cir. 2024). We review the agency’s discretionary denial of a statutorily eligible asylum applicant for abuse of discretion. Andriasian v. INS, 180 F.3d 1033, 1040 (9th Cir. 1999). We review legal questions de novo. Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). We grant the petition in part and remand to the BIA for further proceedings. 1. When the agency denies asylum relief on discretionary grounds, it must demonstrate that it has considered and properly weighed all relevant positive and negative factors. Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004); Gulla v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir. 2007). The agency must place particular importance on whether denial of asylum is likely to result in future persecution. Kalubi, 364 F.3d at 1141. In denying Lopez Alfaro’s application for asylum, the agency properly considered positive factors favoring asylum relief, including his past experiences with a homophobic church, his past persecution by gangs, and the risks that LGBTQ men face in El Salvador at the hands of both private and government actors. It weighed these positive factors against Lopez Alfaro’s recent criminal and drug history, including a felony firearms offense, and determined that the negative factors outweighed the positive factors. Accordingly, the agency acted properly within its discretion to deny petitioner’s asylum claim. 2 25-1828  2. To prevail on withholding of removal, an applicant “must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he will face persecution on account of a protected ground if removed.” Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 955 (9th Cir. 2021). Under the “more likely than not” standard, an applicant’s chance of future persecution must only be slightly greater than fifty percent, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009), and the court must analyze likelihood of harm given the individual applicant’s circumstances, see id. at 1067; Marcos v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1112, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). Lopez Alfaro points out that the “failure to conduct an individualized assessment” is “an error of law.” We agree. The agency misapplied the “more likely than not” standard in denying withholding of removal. The IJ noted that there were 692