Tomas v. Blanche

── Tomas v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATEO JUAN TOMAS, No. 22-230 Agency No. Petitioner, A088-124-752 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. ANA TOMAS AGUSTIN, No. 22-231 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-459-290 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 13, 2026 Seattle, Washington * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Before: PAEZ and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and KASUBHAI, District Judge;** Dissent by Judge Bumatay. Mateo Juan Tomas (“Tomas”) and his daughter, Ana Tomas Agustin (“Tomas Agustin”) (collectively, “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), dismissing their appeals from the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for relief from removal. Both Petitioners applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Tomas Agustin also applied for asylum.1 We review the BIA’s dismissal order and the portions of the IJ’s decision that the BIA incorporated as its own. Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022). We review de novo whether the agency applied the correct “standard of persecution.” Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 146 S. Ct. 845, 849 n.1 (2026). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and the agency’s conclusion as to whether those facts rise to the level of persecution. Id. at 851. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we grant the petitions for review and ** The Honorable Mustafa T. Kasubhai, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. 1 The IJ issued one decision for both Petitioners. The BIA issued separate decisions denying their appeals. Petitioners appealed separately to this court. Tomas’s appeal is No. 22-230. Tomas Agustin’s appeal is No. 22-231. We consolidate the appeals for purposes of this disposition. 2 22-230 remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. Tomas’s uncle and father have long fought over Tomas’s family home, and Tomas’s uncle claims that the home belongs to him. Early in the dispute, Tomas’s uncle physically assaulted Tomas’s father, and Tomas’s father was sent to the hospital after the attack. Beginning in 2010, while Tomas and his family were living in the home, the uncle began a campaign to push them out. On five separate occasions over two years, Tomas’s uncle approached the family home in a drunken rage and fired his gun at the house while Tomas and his family were inside, apparently with the intent to kill them. Each time, the uncle screamed threats at Tomas and his family and demanded that they abandon the home. The evidence compels the conclusion that Tomas experienced past harm rising to the level of persecution. The BIA correctly noted that persecution must be “extreme,” but “any reasonable adjudicator