Zamora Flores v. Blanche

── Zamora Flores v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PATRICIA YURIT ZAMORA FLORES; No. 25-3331 C. M. W. Z.; E. J. W. Z., Agency Nos. A215-935-347 Petitioners, A215-935-348 A215-935-349 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 11, 2026 San Francisco, California Before: H.A. THOMAS and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges, and VERA, District Judge.** Dissent by Judge VERA. Patricia Yurit Zamora Flores and her two minor children are natives and citizens of Mexico. They petition for review of a decision of the Board of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Hernan Diego Vera, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) (collectively, the “Agency”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 “Where the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law, rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012)). We review legal questions de novo and factual findings, including a persecutor’s motive, for substantial evidence. See id.; Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 7 F.4th 888, 893 (9th Cir. 2021) (reviewing the Board’s determination that a petitioner “was targeted by the police because he was a suspected gang member, not because of his political . . . opinion” for substantial evidence). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. 1. The record does not compel the conclusion that a protected ground, including Zamora-Flores’s family-based proposed social group, was “a central reason” or “a reason” for the abuse inflicted upon her by her former partner, Christian. See Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2017) 1 Zamora Flores’s two minor children are listed as derivative beneficiaries of her asylum application. Although her two minor children filed separate Form I-589 applications, their applications referred to Zamora Flores’s application. 2 25-3331 (en banc); Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023). Substantial evidence supports the Agency’s conclusion that it was Christian’s drug use that motivated his abuse, not Zamora Flores’s familial relationship with him or her membership in any gender-based social groups. In the proceedings before the Agency, Zamora Flores rested on her declaration, which mentioned that Christian was “always on drugs” when he began assaulting her again following their move to Ensenada. Her testimony upon examination before the IJ was that Christian “was always high” when he mistreated her. And in their brief on appeal, Petitioners do not cite to any evidence to support their claim that substantial evidence undermines the Agency’s conclusion.2 2.