Nova-Martinez v. Blanche

── Nova-Martinez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANUEL DE JESUS NOVA-MARTINEZ, No. 24-5065 Petitioner, Agency No. A079-352-081 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 23, 2026 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Manuel de Jesus Martinez1 petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 Petitioner’s legal name is Manuel de Jesus Martinez. The agency used an incorrect surname, Nova-Martinez, when it initiated proceedings. Although the case caption reflects this erroneous name, we refer to Martinez by his legal name. protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Where the BIA writes its own decision, as it did here, we review the BIA’s decision, except to the extent it expressly adopts the IJ’s decision.” Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1075–76 (9th Cir. 2020). We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Aleman-Belloso v. Bondi, 128 F.4th 1031, 1039 (9th Cir. 2024). We grant the petition in part, deny it in part, and remand for further proceedings. 1. We begin with the particular social groups (PSGs) Martinez advanced in support of his claims for asylum and withholding. An applicant “seeking relief based on membership in a [PSG] must establish that the group is: ‘(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.’” Diaz- Reynoso, 968 F.4th at 1077 (citation modified). Martinez’s primary PSG, “Salvadorans with severe mental health disabilities who demonstrate perceptible psychosis,” is not cognizable because it is not defined with particularity.3 To satisfy particularity, a PSG “must be defined by characteristics that provide a clear benchmark for determining who falls within the 2 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. 3 The agency described Martinez’s primary PSG as “Salvadorans with severe mental health disabilities who demonstrate some perceptible psychosis.” But Martinez consistently defined his PSG without the modifier “some.” 2 24-5065 group, such that the group possesses ‘discrete and definable boundaries.’” Id. at 1077 (citation modified). Here, the term “severe mental health disabilities” is “not defined in the record, clinically or otherwise.” Andrade v. Garland, 94 F.4th 904, 912 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation modified). Martinez’s clinical expert did not use the term “mental health disability” at all and although she described Martinez’s cognitive impairment as “severe,” she did not opine that “severe” had an established clinical meaning when used in connection with “mental health disability” or in any other context. The present case is therefore distinguishable from Acevedo Granados v. Garla