Rojas Ramirez v. Blanche

── Rojas Ramirez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARGARITA ROJAS RAMIREZ, No. 22-1946 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-936-572 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 24, 2026 Pasadena, California Before: HIGGINSON, NGUYEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.** Dissent by Judge BRESS. Margarita Rojas Ramirez petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal of the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. purely legal questions de novo and the BIA’s fact-based conclusions for substantial evidence, see Ruiz v. Bondi, 163 F.4th 586, 592, 599 (9th Cir. 2025), we grant the petition in part, deny it in part, and remand for further proceedings. 1. The BIA erred by failing to address relevant evidence that Los Pelones members persecuted Rojas Ramirez based in part on her family membership and that the Mexican government is unable or unwilling to stop them. We therefore grant the petition for review as to her family-based claims for asylum and withholding of removal and remand for further consideration.1 a. To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must show that a protected ground is “at least one central reason” for the persecution she fears upon removal.2 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). The BIA found no nexus between Rojas-Ramirez’s 1 We do not conclude that Rojas Ramirez established the requisite nexus or that “the record compels the conclusion” that the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to control her family’s persecutors. Dissent at 1. Rather, the issue is that the BIA failed to address “highly probative record evidence,” Diaz v. Bondi, 129 F.4th 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 638 (9th Cir. 2022)), which due process requires, see Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000). On remand, the BIA is free to reject Rojas Ramirez’s evidence if it provides an explanation that the record supports. 2 For Rojas Ramirez’s family-based claims, we address nexus only as to asylum. To the extent the BIA concluded that an applicant who fails to establish nexus for an asylum claim “cannot meet the lower burden . . . to establish eligibility for withholding of removal,” it erred. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[I]t is possible that a petitioner who failed to show a sufficient nexus for asylum might nonetheless meet the lower nexus requirement for withholding of removal.”). 2 22-1946 family-based particular social group and the harm inflicted on her family by Los Pelones members because “the cartel and the family associated with it are known to harm people unrelated to [her], including in surrounding communities.” Under our “mixed-motive” case law, however, an asylum applicant “need not show that the protected ground was