Juan Manzanares-Valente v. Todd Blanche

── Juan Manzanares-Valente v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN MANUEL MANZANARES- No. 20-71215, 21-1276 VALENTE, Agency No. A094-373-199 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 19, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW, BEA, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Juan Manuel Manzanares-Valente, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). He first seeks review of the BIA’s decision, which affirmed without opinion an * 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). Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He also petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petitions. 1. Where, as here, “the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and affirms without opinion, we review the decision of the IJ as the final agency determination.” Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir. 2005). We apply de novo review to questions of law and substantial evidence review to the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal. To prevail on a withholding of removal claim, an applicant “must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he will face persecution on account of a protected ground if removed.” Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 955 (9th Cir. 2021). Here, the agency determined that Manzanares-Valente did not establish past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution and that there was no nexus between his feared harm and his family-based particular social group. Manzanares-Valente’s uncle was kidnapped and killed in Mexico, and he fears that he will face similar persecution as a member of his uncle’s family. Manzanares- Valente does not know why his uncle was kidnapped and killed, nor who 2 committed these acts. A family can be considered a particular social group for purposes of proving a protected ground. Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 910 (9th Cir. 2018). However, Manzanares-Valente’s family members who have remained in Mexico have not faced harm, and the record does not compel the conclusion that he will more likely than not face persecution because of his family membership. Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (requiring a causal nexus between the past or future persecution and the protected ground). Manzanares-Valente also argues that he will be at risk of persecution because of widespread violence in Mexico but does not offer evidence of his individualized risk. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (holding that fear of “sporadic violence that has recurred in [petitioner’s] country” is insufficient to show that harm is likely for a petitioner “absent an individualized risk of persecution”