Haghighatpour v. Blanche

── Haghighatpour v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOHSEN HAGHIGHATPOUR, No. 25-2623 Petitioner, Agency No. A023-387-462 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 21, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: LEE, BUMATAY, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Mohsen Haghighatpour seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of his applications for asylum from Iran and Germany, withholding of removal to * 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). Germany, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) from Iran and Germany. “Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation modified). “We review the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence, but review de novo both purely legal questions and mixed questions of law and fact requiring us to exercise judgment about legal principles.” Id. at 481—82 (citation modified). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. 1. The BIA provided adequate reasoning when it adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. Indeed, the “BIA’s citation to Burbano signals that it has conducted an independent review of the record and has exercised its own discretion in determining that its conclusions are the same as those articulated by the IJ.” Maie v. Garland, 7 F.4th 841, 846 n.2 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation modified). Because we presume that the BIA independently reviewed the record in its entirety, the BIA had no obligation to address every issue and piece of record evidence. See id. In any event, contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the BIA specifically addressed the IJ’s findings and relevant record evidence regarding credibility, past persecution, and the likelihood of future persecution or torture. 2 25-2623  2. Germany is an appropriate alternative country of removal because it is “[t]he country from which [Petitioner] was admitted to the United States,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(E)(i). Petitioner’s assertion that Germany would not accept him does not disturb this conclusion. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(E), a country’s “[n]onacceptance [of the person ordered removed] may surely be one of the factors considered in determining whether removal to a given country” is advisable; however, the agency is not required to consider this factor, nor is it “dispositive” of whether the designation of an alternative country of removal is appropriate. Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335, 342 (2005). 3. The BIA correctly held that Petitioner forfeited his challenge to the IJ’s denial of his applications for asylum on discretionary grounds. To avoid forfeiting an argument or issue, a petitioner must put the BIA “sufficiently on notice so that it h