Lopez Mendoza v. Blanche

── Lopez Mendoza v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 22 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA DE LA ASUNCION LOPEZ No. 24-7083 MENDOZA, Agency No. A206-139-530 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 20, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Maria de la Asuncion Lopez Mendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing Petitioner’s appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge * 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). (“IJ”) denying Petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying Petitioner’s motion to remand to apply for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. “We review both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions because the BIA affirmed the IJ and cited Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994).” Cruz v. Bondi, 146 F.4th 730, 737 (9th Cir. 2025). We review the agency’s legal determinations de novo and the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Ruiz- Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). “Under the substantial evidence standard, administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (citation omitted). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). 1. The agency properly denied Petitioner’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner challenges the agency’s determination that she did not experience past persecution or establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. First, under the substantial evidence standard, Petitioner did not demonstrate past persecution. Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. ___ (2026). Persecution “is an extreme concept that means something considerably more than discrimination or harassment.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2 24-7083 2021) (quoting Donchev v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2009)). Petitioner points to threatening phone calls she received over the course of a few years despite moving and changing her phone number multiple times. But “[m]ere threats, without more, do not necessarily compel a finding of past persecution.” Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021); see Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1064 (noting that “threatening phone calls over a period of years” that contain “generally anonymous and vague” threats do not show significant actual harm). Furthermore, the record here does not contain evidence that the phone calls were “combined with confrontation or other mistreatment” toward Petitioner, or that Petitioner was ever physically harmed while living in Guatemala. Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.