Emilia Fuentes Ayala v. Todd Blanche

── Emilia Fuentes Ayala v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 01, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 1 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EMILIA FUENTES AYALA, AKA Emilia No. 17-72351 Ayala, AKA Imelia Fuentes-Ayala, Agency No. A200-897-619 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 2, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: PAEZ, BEA, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Emilia Fuentes Ayala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of * 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). removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief 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 denial of asylum and withholding of removal. 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)). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, a petitioner must “prove that it is more likely than not” that she will be persecuted “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); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). “For both asylum and withholding claims, a petitioner must prove a causal nexus between one of her statutorily protected characteristics and either her past harm or her objectively tenable fear of future harm.” Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). Fuentes Ayala claims she was persecuted based on her membership in a 2 proposed social group consisting of “those in Michoacan who chose neutrality in the feud between the Knights Templar and the self-defense groups,” as well as based on her status as an imputed family member of her ex-partner, Baldemar. As to the former group, and even assuming the proposed group is cognizable, the BIA reasonably concluded that Fuentes Ayala did not prove she was a member of the group. The record supports the BIA’s determination that Fuentes Ayala “never testified that she chose or expressed an opinion about neutrality.” Regardless, as to both particular social groups, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Fuentes Ayala did not establish a nexus between her past and contemplated harm and a protected ground. Instead, the Knights Templar targeted Baldemar and sought out his location from Fuentes Ayala because the gang wanted to obtain Baldemar’s family’s proper