Duran v. Blanche

── Duran v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY DENILSON DURAN, No. 25-2086 Agency No. Petitioner, A218-147-608 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 21, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: FRIEDLAND and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO, District Judge.*** Anthony Denilson Duran, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal * 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 Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. from an immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. “Where, as here, the [Board] agrees with the IJ decision and also adds its own reasoning, we review the decision of the [Board] and those parts of the IJ’s decision upon which it relies.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027–28 (9th Cir. 2019). We review for abuse of discretion the Board’s determination that a crime is “particularly serious” under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). Edgar G.C. v. Bondi, 136 F.4th 832, 841–42 (9th Cir. 2025), as amended. We review for substantial evidence the factual findings underlying the Board’s determination that an applicant has failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 641–42 (9th Cir. 2021). Under that standard, the agency’s findings of fact are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 1. The Board neither applied the wrong legal standard nor abused its discretion in determining that Duran was convicted of a particularly serious crime and was therefore ineligible for withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B). To determine whether a crime is particularly serious, the agency must consider “the nature of the conviction, the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction,” and “the type of sentence imposed.” Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 2 25-2086 1127 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Matter of Frentescu, 18 I. & N. Dec. 244, 247 (B.I.A. 1982)). The Board reasonably concluded that Duran’s conviction for shooting at an occupied vehicle in violation of California Penal Code § 246, for which he was sentenced to three years in prison, was a particularly serious crime. The Board appropriately determined that Duran’s criminal conduct “presented a significant danger of causing a serious injury or death” because Duran, while under the influence of controlled substances, discharged an illegally purchased firearm at an occupied vehicle on a freeway during a road-rage incident. Duran argues that he expressed remorse and has been rehabilitated. Those arguments are unexhausted because Duran di