Santoyo Soriano v. Blanche

── Santoyo Soriano v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 29 2026 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAVIER SANTOYO SORIANO; GLADYS No. 24-5648 NAVARRO ROJAS; ERISBET GUADALUPE SANTOYO NAVARRO; Agency Nos. MATILDE DIOCELIN SANTOYO A244-012-839 NAVARRO; DIOSMILDA ENEREYDA A244-012-840 SANTOYO NAVARRO; RAMIRO A244-012-841 SANTOYO NAVARRO; GABRIEL A244-012-842 SANTOYO NAVARRO, A244-012-843 A244-012-844 Petitioners, A244-012-845 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 24, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER, KOH, Circuit Judges, and RAYES, District Judge.*** * 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 Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.  Javier Santoyo Soriano, Gladys Navarro Rojas, and their five minor children petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). Under that standard, the BIA’s findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 750 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners did not establish a nexus between their alleged harm and their family membership. “A nexus between the harm and a protected ground is a necessary element of asylum and withholding of removal.” Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 551 (9th Cir. 2023). The record supports the BIA’s finding that Los Viagras extorted Petitioners solely for pecuniary gain. Los Viagras extorted Santoyo Soriano only after learning that he received monthly subsidies from the Mexican government. The group targeted Santoyo Soriano’s cousin for the same reason. Although Santoyo Soriano has several family members remaining in Mexico, only his father 2 and sister have been targeted, and both either owned livestock or received government subsidies. Indeed, Santoyo Soriano testified that Los Viagras’s motivation “was money and they wanted to keep everything that you had, if you had cows . . . . They wanted to take it away.” A “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioners failed to exhaust their asylum and withholding of removal claims based on their minor child’s infantile cerebral palsy. “The exhaustion requirement contained in 8 U.S.C