Castellanos Garcia v. Blanche

── Castellanos Garcia v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 29 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BENITO CASTELLANOS No. 22-1949 GARCIA; ZENAIDA FENTANES Agency Nos. MUNOZ, A213-062-556 A213-062-557 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. BENITO CASTELLANOS No. 24-4687 GARCIA; ZENAIDA FENTANES Agency Nos. MUNOZ, A213-062-556 A213-062-557 Petitioners, v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Submitted March 31, 2026** Before: GOULD, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Benito Castellanos Garcia and Zenaida Fentanes Munoz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their claims for asylum and withholding of removal.1 They also petition for review of the denial of their application for cancellation of removal, and from the denial of their motion to reopen proceedings. “Because the BIA affirmed on the basis of Matter of Burbano, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s decision.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc).2 1. An application for asylum must be filed within one year of an alien’s entry into the United States unless “the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of the ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 Petitioners’ pro se Opening Brief also mentions protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) together with asylum and withholding of removal. But the Opening Brief does not advance any argument that the agency erred in finding Petitioners ineligible for protection under CAT. Petitioners therefore forfeited any argument on this issue. See Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 959 (9th Cir. 2021). 2 The BIA noted that it did not adopt the IJ’s reliance on Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019), and so we do not review the IJ’s analysis on that point. 2 24-4687 Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). Before the IJ, Petitioners “concede[d] that they are not eligible for asylum, as they did not file their asylum application within one year of their arrival in the United States.” Still, the IJ “[i]ndependently[] consider[ed] the testimony” regarding changed or extraordinary circumstances, namely, that Petitioner Castellanos Garcia “had a fear of returning to Mexico once his children were born.” The IJ concluded that Petitioners had not established “any material change in circumstance or extraordinary circumstances.” Ordinarily, the BIA’s citation of Burbano would require us to consider the IJ’s merits