Noel v. Blanche

── Noel v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOCELYN NOEL; RUTHA JOSEPH; D. No. 25-4032 N.; R. N.; J. N., Agency Nos. A220-562-919 Petitioners, A220-562-920 A220-562-921 v. A220-562-922 A220-562-923 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 21, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: N.R. SMITH, BENNETT, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Jocelyn Noel, his wife, and their three minor children (“Petitioners”) are natives and citizens of Haiti and Brazil. They petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) * 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). denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. Where, as here, one member of the BIA summarily affirms an IJ’s decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), “[t]he IJ’s decision becomes the final agency action.” Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003). We thus “evaluate the IJ’s decision as we would that of the Board.” Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir. 2004). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014), and an adverse credibility determination is “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted); see also Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 146 S. Ct. 845, 850 (2026). The REAL ID Act requires a “healthy measure of deference to agency credibility determinations.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). 1. Petitioners did not exhaust their legal claims regarding CAT relief and withholding of removal before the BIA and we cannot review these arguments on appeal. A court may review a final order of removal only if the petitioner has “exhausted all administrative remedies available . . . as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). “Exhaustion requires a non-constitutional legal claim to the court on 2 25-4032 appeal to have first been raised in the administrative proceedings below . . . .” Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020). Petitioners did not file a timely appeal brief before the BIA, and the BIA’s review was therefore limited solely to their Notice of Appeal. Petitioners’ Notice of Appeal challenged only the IJ’s denial of their asylum application. Accordingly, we cannot review the withholding of removal or CAT relief arguments Petitioners now raise in this court. See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023); see also Santos- Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 419 (2023). 2. Petitioners challenge the