Jose Valencia Gutierrez v. Todd Blanche

── Jose Valencia Gutierrez v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS VALENCIA GUTIERREZ; No. 20-73040 ANGELINA ZEPEDA CHAVEZ; M. R. V. Z., Agency Nos. A202-158-370 A202-158-371 Petitioners, A202-158-372 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 24, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER and KOH, Circuit Judges, and RAYES,*** District Judge. Lead Petitioner Jose Luis Valencia Gutierrez; Rider Petitioner Angelina * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel previously granted Respondent’s unopposed motion to submit this case on the briefs and record (Dkt. 36). *** The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Zepeda Chavez, his wife; and Rider Petitioner M. R. V. Z., his minor daughter (collectively, “Petitioners”) are natives and citizens of Mexico. Petitioners seek review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lead Petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, humanitarian asylum, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and Rider Petitioners’ derivative claims for asylum.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny all petitions as to asylum and humanitarian asylum. We deny Lead Petitioner’s petition as to withholding of removal, grant the petition as to CAT, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings. We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, and the agency’s findings will be upheld unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022)). 1 Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), spouses and children as defined in 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(b)(1)(A-E) may assert derivative asylum claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). The INA does not provide for derivative withholding claims, nor do the CAT implementing regulations provide for derivative CAT claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (not providing derivative relief for withholding claims); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (not providing derivative relief under CAT); Oscar v. Bondi, 135 F.4th 777, 779 n.1 (9th Cir. 2025). 2  1. “To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to 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)). “A nexus between the harm and a protected ground is a necessary element of asylum and withholding of removal.” Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 551 (9th Cir. 2023). The agency properly denied Petitioners