Lourdes Soto Armenta v. Todd Blanche

── Lourdes Soto Armenta v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 23 2026 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LOURDES SOTO ARMENTA, No. 20-71309 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A208-303-550 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 21, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Lourdes Soto Armenta petitions this Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal. We have jurisdiction * 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). pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review denials of motions to reopen . . . for abuse of discretion and questions of law de novo.” Fonseca-Fonseca v. Garland, 76 F.4th 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted); see also Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. __, 146 S.Ct. 845, 850–51 (2026). We deny the petition. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here. I The BIA properly concluded that Soto Armenta did not satisfy her burden of proof to show that there was a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground. An applicant must show that their proposed protected ground was at least one central reason the applicant was persecuted to receive asylum and simply a reason to receive withholding of removal. Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir. 2021); Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358 (9th Cir. 2017). The BIA upheld the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) finding that Soto Armenta had not established a nexus between her proposed particular social groups (“PSGs”) of “single mother head of household” or “single mother in a place where the cartels are de facto government” and any harm she experienced at the hands of 2 the Cartel. Instead, the BIA held that “[t]he evidence reflects that the respondent was targeted for purposes of furthering the goals of the cartel, not based on her membership in either particular social group.” As the IJ noted, multiple times within the record, Soto Armenta indicated that the Cartel targeted her because they believed she had access to money. The record contains little evidence supporting her nexus claim. See I.N.S. v. Elias- Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (noting that either direct or circumstantial evidence can support a nexus claim but the petitioner “must provide some evidence” (emphasis in original)). She provided no evidence to support her claim that she was targeted because she is a single mother. See e.g. Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 804 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that neither of her proposed PSGs was a reason for any harm she experienced. The lack of nexus determination is dispositive of her asylum and withholding claims. II The BIA also properly dism