Paz Silva v. Blanche

── Paz Silva v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FERNANDO PAZ-SILVA, No. 25-3294 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-763-867 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 22, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW, BRESS, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Fernando Paz-Silva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of * 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). removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. As here, “[w]hen the BIA affirms and adopts an IJ’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the IJ.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal. In his counseled briefs before the BIA and this court, Paz-Silva failed to challenge the IJ’s determination that he did not establish a probability of future persecution. Paz- Silva therefore failed to exhaust, and has now forfeited, any arguments against this dispositive basis for the IJ’s decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Hernandez-Ortiz, 32 F.4th at 804 n.1. Regardless, the IJ did not err in denying withholding of removal. To establish entitlement to this form of relief, a petitioner must “prove that it is more likely than not” that he will be persecuted “because of” membership in a particular social group 1 Paz-Silva did not challenge the IJ’s denial of asylum before the BIA or in his opening brief in this court. That claim is accordingly unexhausted and forfeited. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 32 F.4th 794, 804 n.1 (9th Cir. 2022) (Issues not raised in opening brief are forfeited.). 2 25-3294 or other protected ground. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357, 360 (9th Cir. 2017); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Paz-Silva claims he fears persecution based on his membership in a proposed social group consisting of “a person that has been in the United States for many years and recently suffered a deportation/removal and who has family in the United States and who are citizens of the United States.” But the IJ correctly determined that this proposed group is not cognizable because it is overbroad and lacks particularity. See, e.g., Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237–38 (BIA 2014); Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2019); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). In addition, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s alternativ