MacAria Martinez Garcia v. Todd Blanche

── MacAria Martinez Garcia v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 04, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 4 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MACARIA MARTINEZ GARCIA, No. 19-70441 Petitioner, Agency No. A216-630-117 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 23, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: HIGGINSON,*** NGUYEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Macaria Martinez Garcia (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision * 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “Where, as here, the BIA reviewed the IJ’s factual findings for clear error, and reviewed de novo all other issues, our review is ‘limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’” Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). “We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims 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. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to asylum. “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)). Petitioner is a member of the indigenous Triqui group from Oaxaca, Mexico. She alleges that she faced persecution from a group called El Movimiento de 2 Unificación y Lucha Triqui (“MULT”) that operated in Oaxaca and targeted Triqui people, including by forcing them to join multi-day marches. Although she did not want to, Petitioner marched with MULT multiple times because she feared being fined or imprisoned by MULT if she protested. Petitioner contends that MULT targeted her late husband and at one point imprisoned him for two days because of his resistance to MULT’s tactics. Petitioner herself was also targeted by a member of MULT who came to her house and threatened to rape her and to rape and kidnap her twelve-year-old granddaughter. Persecution “is an extreme concept that means something considerably more than discrimination or harassment.” Id. at 1060 (quoting Donchev v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2009)). The persecution inquiry is highly fact dependent, but often includes “significant physical violence.” Id. at 1061 (quoting Nagoulko