Orlando Reyes-Navarro v. Todd Blanche

── Orlando Reyes-Navarro v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 01, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 1 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ORLANDO REYES-NAVARRO; TERESA No. 20-73290 FRAGOSO-SANCHEZ, Agency Nos. A202-096-361 Petitioners, A202-096-362 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: FRIEDLAND and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and SCARSI, District Judge.*** Petitioners Orlando Reyes-Navarro and Teresa Fragoso-Sanchez, a husband and wife, seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that * 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 Mark C. Scarsi, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. (1) dismissed their appeal of an immigration judge’s orders denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and (2) denied their motion for remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. “We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion.” Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012). Because the Board’s 2020 decision incorporated its 2017 decision, we review both decisions and the corresponding decisions of the immigration judge to the extent the Board adopted their reasoning. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations that a petitioner failed to establish (1) that he suffered past harm rising to the level of persecution and (2) that relocation would be unsafe or unreasonable. See Urias- Orellana v. Bondi, 146 S. Ct. 845, 848 (2026) (past persecution); Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal relocation). We review the denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion, Ani v. Bondi, 155 F.4th 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2025), and review constitutional claims de novo, Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland, 8 F.4th 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2021). 1. In its 2017 decision, the Board “agree[d] with the Immigration Judge” that petitioners failed to establish past harm rising to the level of persecution. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. 2 20-73290  Fragoso-Sanchez’s mother and father lived next door to Fragoso-Sanchez’s father’s uncle, Juventino, in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. In 2007, Juventino murdered Fragoso-Sanchez’s father. In 2008 and again in 2014, Juventino called Fragoso-Sanchez’s mother and threatened to kill other family members, including Reyes-Navarro. Petitioners arrived in the United States in August 2014, but left their two young children with Fragoso-Sanchez’s mother. Two years later, Juventino broke into Fragoso-Sanchez’s mother’s home and fired a gun. Reyes- Navarro’s brother subsequently brought the children to the United States. Juventino never physically harmed petitioners. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The first [factor], an