Bran-Barahona v. Blanche

── Bran-Barahona v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KENIA PATRICIA BRAN-BARAHONA; No. 25-3234 MARVIN OBED REYES BRAN; Agency Nos. G.M.T.B., A202-029-522 A202-029-524 Petitioners, A202-029-523 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 18, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: BENNETT, KOH, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Kenia Patricia Bran-Barahona (“Bran-Barahona”) and her two children, Marvin Obed Reyes Bran and G.M.T.B., (collectively, “Petitioners”) petition for * 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). review of a Board of Immigration (“BIA”) decision dismissing Petitioners’ appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Bran-Barahona’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the children’s derivative asylum applications and separate applications for withholding of removal and relief under CAT. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition.1 “Where [] the BIA agrees with the IJ decision and also adds its own reasoning, we review the decision of the BIA and those parts of the IJ’s decision upon which it relies.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2019). Our “review is limited to those grounds explicitly relied upon by the Board.” Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016). We review the agency’s factual findings, including whether an applicant has a well-founded fear of future persecution, for substantial evidence. Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 146 S. Ct. 845, 851 (2026). Under the substantial evidence standard, the agency’s factual findings are conclusive unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 1. The BIA found that Bran-Barahona “cannot establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal” because Bran-Barahona “did not establish 1 Because Marvin is now 23 years old, he can no longer qualify as a derivative applicant on Bran-Barahona’s asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(b)(1)(A), 1158(b)(3)(A). 2 [that] she experienced past persecution or [has] a well-founded fear of future persecution.” “To demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution, the [applicant] must establish that her fear is both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007). The BIA found that Bran-Barahona does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution because her fear is not objectively reasonable based on the following three reasons. First, Bran-Barahona did “not provide evidence of a particularized threat of future harm.” Second, Bran-Barahona did not provide “evidence that other family members have been harmed by gang members.” Third, Bran-Barahona “provided insufficient evidence that anyone would still be interested in harming her.”2 We address each in tu