Lopez-Sebastian v. Blanche

── Lopez-Sebastian v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 04, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 4 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA LOPEZ-SEBASTIAN; S. G. G.-L.; No. 25-2998 M. G.-L.; M. I. G.-L.; D. R. G.-L., Agency Nos. A208-381-652 Petitioners, A208-289-268 A208-289-270 v. A208-381-653 A208-381-654 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 22, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: HIGGINSON, NGUYEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.*** Maria Lopez-Sebastian (“Maria”) and her four children, who are derivative beneficiaries to Maria’s asylum application, are natives and citizens of Guatemala. * 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 Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. Maria and her children (collectively “Petitioners”) petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Maria’s application for asylum and her application for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.1 1. The BIA correctly concluded that Petitioners waived their claims of past persecution in their appeal to the BIA. Under BIA precedent, failure to raise an issue constitutes waiver. See Matter of Valdez, 27 I. & N. Dec. 496, 498 n.3 (BIA 2018). Petitioners’ brief before the BIA addressed only one issue: whether Petitioners had established a well-founded fear of future persecution. Their brief nowhere mentions that the IJ reached a conclusion about past persecution, and its concluding plea was that the BIA “find that [Petitioners] have a well-founded fear of future persecution.” As such, the BIA correctly concluded that Petitioners waived their past-persecution arguments before the BIA. 2. Regarding future persecution, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioners failed to adequately demonstrate the requisite nexus between alleged future persecution and the particular social group of “family.” To satisfy the nexus requirement, an asylum applicant must “provide evidence 1 Because Maria’s opening brief does not make meaningful arguments about the denial of her withholding-only claim, she forfeited this claim. See Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022). 2 25-2998 showing that her protected characteristics were ‘one central reason’ for either her past harms or her feared future harms.” Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). “The reasons needed to prove a nexus refer to the persecutor’s motivations for persecuting the petitioner.” Id. Before the IJ, Maria testified that she feared future persecution by an unknown person making calls to her residence. She made