Olivarez Morales v. Blanche

── Olivarez Morales v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED APR 28 2026 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NATIVIDAD OLIVAREZ MORALES; No. 24-7677 S.O.O., Agency Nos. A245-109-523 Petitioners, A245-109-526 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.*** Natividad Olivarez Morales and her child, S.O.O., natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) * 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. decision dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “Petitioner” when used in the singular refers to the lead petitioner, Natividad Olivarez Morales.1 We review the denial of asylum and withholding of removal for substantial evidence. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. To be eligible for asylum, 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)). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, she must prove that it is more likely than not that she will be persecuted if returned to Mexico because of membership in a particular social group or other protected ground. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). Persecution “is an extreme concept that means something considerably more than 1 S.O.O.’s application is based on the same operative facts as the facts in Petitioner’s application. 2 24-7677 discrimination or harassment.” Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1060. The Supreme Court recently clarified that we review the agency’s persecution determination for substantial evidence. See Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, No. 24-777, 2026 WL 598435, at *4–5 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2026). Under this standard, review is “extremely deferential,” Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and the evidence must “compel[] a contrary conclusion from that adopted by the BIA,” Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 909 (9th Cir. 2018). “[W]e may not reweigh the evidence to determine for ourselves whether Petitioner faced persecution”; instead, “[w]e merely determine whether the evidence compels such a conclusion.” See Singh v. I.N.S., 134 F.3d 962, 969 n.14 (9th Cir. 1998).