Tascon-Marin v. Blanche

── Tascon-Marin v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HERNAN DARIO TASCON-MARIN; No. 25-3614 DIANA CAROLINA VARELA-SARRIA; Agency Nos. MANUELA TASCON-VARELA; S. T.-V., A246-178-551 A246-178-552 Petitioners, A246-178-565 A246-178-564 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 22, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: N.R. SMITH, BENNETT, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Hernan Dario Tascon-Marin and his wife and children, citizens and natives of Colombia who relocated to the United States from Chile, petition for * 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). review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal of the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”).1 The IJ denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. “Where the BIA writes its own decision, as it did here, we review the BIA’s decision, except to the extent it expressly adopts the IJ’s decision.” Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1075–76 (9th Cir. 2020). “We review de novo the BIA’s determinations on questions of law. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings . . . .” Id. at 1076 (citation omitted). Under the “highly deferential substantial evidence standard . . . the agency’s findings of fact are considered ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022)). 1. The BIA dismissed Petitioners’ appeal with respect to their claims for asylum and withholding of removal because it determined that, in their appeal to the BIA, Petitioners ha[d] not meaningfully challenged the Immigration Judge’s determinations that they did not identify a cognizable particular social group or nexus to an enumerated ground (including political opinion), did not establish a well- founded fear of persecution or that it is more likely than not they will be 1 Petitioner Tascon-Marin’s children are derivative applicants. 2 25-3614  persecuted upon return to Colombia or Chile, and that Colombian or Chilean authorities are unable or unwilling to protect them against future threats or harm. While Petitioners did meaningfully challenge the IJ’s determination regarding a well-founded fear of persecution, we agree that Petitioners’ appeal to the BIA did not challenge the IJ’s determinations that they had not identified a cognizable particular social group and that they had not established a nexus between the persecution they feared and any of their proposed social groups or political opinions. “[W]hen a petitioner does file a brief, t