Buenrostro-Moreno v. Blanche

── Buenrostro-Moreno v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LORENA BUENROSTRO-MORENO; No. 25-5948 DANIEL LARA-BUENROSTRO; I. L.-B.; Agency Nos. B. L.-B.; R. I. L.-B.; MARIA A240-244-141 GUADALUPE LARA-BUENROSTRO, A240-244-136 A240-244-137 Petitioners, A240-244-138 A240-244-139 v. A240-244-140 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 23, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Lorena Buenrostro-Moreno and five of her children, natives and citizens of Mexico (Petitioners), seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration * 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). Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal based on their ability to reasonably relocate within Mexico and denying their due process challenge to the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) conduct. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. When the BIA “incorporates the IJ’s decision . . . without citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), this court will review the IJ’s decision to the extent incorporated” by the BIA’s decision. Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014). We review questions of law related to immigration proceedings de novo. See Route v. Garland, 996 F.3d 968, 975 (9th Cir. 2021). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. ---, 146 S.Ct. 845, 851 (2026); Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019). A finding is supported by substantial evidence “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Villavicencio v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 658, 663–64 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). 1. Due Process. Petitioners argue that they were denied their right “to a neutral arbiter” when the IJ, at the end of the merits hearing, asked the Government’s attorney if it was planning on waiving or reserving appeal. Due process is violated only if “the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620– 21 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). To show fundamental unfairness based on 2 25-5948 prejudgment by the IJ, petitioners must show “the IJ had a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the IJ neither prevented Petitioners from presenting evidence nor denied them a full hearing. The IJ inquired of the Government about appeal after both parties had offered all their evidence and made their closing remarks. Beyond the single question that Petitioners point to, they identify nothing further giving rise to any inference of prejudgmen