Caren Trejo Medina v. Todd Blanche

── Caren Trejo Medina v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 2 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CAREN XIMARA TREJO MEDINA, AKA No. 15-72693 Karen Xiomara Trejo Medina, Agency No. A205-988-076 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 24, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: FRIEDLAND and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and TRAUM,*** District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable Anne R. Traum, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.  Petitioner Caren Trejo Medina petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and post-conclusion voluntary departure.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Where, as here, the BIA cites Burbano and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2011). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review questions of law de novo. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006); Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Trejo Medina is ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. The record does not compel the conclusion that Trejo Medino experienced past harm rising to the level of persecution. Although petitioner was kidnapped and threatened, she was held only briefly before being released, was not physically harmed, and had no subsequent interactions with the gang members. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1061- 1 The agency also denied relief under the Convention Against Torture, but Trejo Medina does not seek review of that denial. 2 62 (9th Cir. 2021) (looking to whether petitioner “suffered serious injuries,” the “length and quality of [her] detention,” and whether threats were “repeated, specific and combined with confrontation or other mistreatment” (citation omitted)). On the record before us, the agency also appropriately concluded that Trejo Medina did not produce evidence sufficient to meet her burden to show that any future harm would have a nexus to a proposed social group. The BIA concluded that “there is no evidence that the gang members [who kidnapped or threatened Trejo Medina] are, or could become, aware of [her] opposition to them.” Petitioner points to no evidence belying that conclusion. Indeed, the record amply supports the agency’s determination that the gang members are running an “extortion” scheme targeted at petitioner’s aunt. Trejo Medina requests a remand so the agency may reconsider her application for post-conclusion voluntary departure. The IJ denied her request for voluntary departure solely because she had not been physically present in the United