Elsa Gonzalez Fuentes v. Todd Blanche

── Elsa Gonzalez Fuentes v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELSA GONZALEZ FUENTES; E.A.G.F.; No. 21-70125 K.G.F.; A.C.G., Agency Nos. A209-008-179 Petitioners, A209-008-180 A209-008-181 v. A209-008-182 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 22, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN and KOH, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Elsa Gonzalez Fuentes and her children, E.A.G.F., K.G.F., and A.C.G. (collectively, “Petitioners”), citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s * 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”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ decision and also adds its own reasoning, we review the decision of the BIA 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 purely legal questions de novo, and the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence.” Perez-Portillo v. Garland, 56 F.4th 788, 792 (9th Cir. 2022). 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. To establish eligibility for asylum, Petitioners must “demonstrate a likelihood of ‘persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, Petitioners must show “that it is more likely than not” that they will be persecuted if returned to Mexico “because of” their membership in a particular social group or other protected ground. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357, 360 (9th Cir. 2017); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). And for both claims, Petitioners “must prove a causal nexus between one of [their] statutorily protected characteristics and 2 either [their] past harm or [their] objectively tenable fear of future harm.” Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioners failed to establish a nexus between their alleged persecution and their family-based particular social group, family members of Salvador Cruz Salas (the paternal grandfather of A.C.G.). The agency reasonably concluded that Cruz Salas was not motivated to harm A.C.G. because of their familial relationship, but instead “simply want[ed] to raise his grandson because he [was] sad that his own son [was] missing and presumed dead.” Gonzalez Fuentes testified tha