Aleksanian v. Blanche

── Aleksanian v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEIRAN ALEKSANIAN; TATIANA No. 24-5444 UDOVITSA; M.A., Agency Nos. A241-704-878 Petitioners, A241-704-879 A241-704-880 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* 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 Seiran Aleksanian, Rider Petitioner Tatiana Udovitsa, and Rider Petitioner M.A. (collectively, “Petitioners”), citizens of Russia, petition for * 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 Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. review of the 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, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and Rider Petitioners’ derivative claims for asylum.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. “Where the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration judge’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 702 (9th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “We review for substantial evidence factual findings underlying the BIA’s determination that a petitioner is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. To prevail . . . the petitioner must show that the evidence . . . compels the conclusion that these findings and decisions are erroneous.” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 1. To be eligible for asylum, Petitioners must show that they “qualify as a refugee either because [Petitioner] has suffered past persecution or because 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); See also Oscar v. Bondi, 135 F.4th 777, 779 n.1 (9th Cir. 2025). 2 [Petitioner] has a well-founded fear of future persecution” on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). Petitioners’ opening brief and reply brief do not challenge the agency’s determination that none of the past individual instances of harm and discrimination Lead Petitioner suffered in Russia rise to the level of persecution. Instead, Petitioners’ opening brief argues that the agency erred by not considering