Hernandez-De Cornejo v. Blanche

── Hernandez-De Cornejo v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 11, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GLADIS ESPERANZA HERNANDEZ-DE No. 24-2731 CORNEJO; E. P. C.-H.; L. D. C.-H., Agency Nos. A220-748-095 Petitioners, A220-748-096 A220-748-097 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. GLADIS ESPERANZA HERNANDEZ-DE No. 25-3012 CORNEJO; E. P. C.-H.; L. D. C.-H., Agency Nos. Petitioners, A220-748-095 A220-748-096 v. A220-748-097 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 April 22, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Gladis Hernandez-De Cornejo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of two Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions in these consolidated petitions. 1 Her first petition pertains to the BIA’s dismissal of her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Hernandez De-Cornejo also petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen the proceedings. We deny both petitions. 1. Asylum and Withholding. The “substantial-evidence standard” governs our review of the BIA’s decision. Singh v. Garland, 57 F.4th 643, 651 (9th Cir. 2023), abrogated on other grounds by Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. --, 146 S. Ct. 845, 851 (2026). Under that standard, we review whether the BIA’s decision is supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (as amended) (citation omitted). We grant the petition only when “the evidence not only supports[] but compels the conclusion” that the BIA’s findings ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 Hernandez-De Cornejo’s two minor children are derivative petitioners. 2 24-2731 and decisions are erroneous. Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022) (as amended) (citation omitted). Where, the BIA agrees with the IJ and adds additional reasoning, as here, “we review both the BIA’s decision and the portions of the IJ’s decision adopted by the BIA.” Diaz v. Bondi, 129 F.4th 546, 552 (9th Cir. 2025). To establish eligibility for asylum, the petitioner must “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)). “The source of the persecution must be the government or forces that the government is unwilling or unable to control.” Singh, 57 F.4th at 652 (citation omitted). To esta