Case Explained: ABRAHAMIAN ASFORA V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-01 The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Juliana Catel Abrahamian Asfora, a native of Brazil and dual citizen of Italy, challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court reviewed the Immigration Judge’s decision de novo for legal conclusions and for substantial evidence regarding factual findings. Regarding the asylum claim, the court held that the application was untimely and no statutory exception applied. The court found substantial evidence supporting the determination that the petitioner failed to demonstrate “changed circumstances” or “extraordinary circumstances” justifying an extension of the one-year filing deadline. Specifically, the court ruled that a 2014 carjacking occurred too long before the application to constitute a material change in eligibility, and her father’s return to political candidacy did not materially affect her asylum claim as the alleged fear was triggered years prior. Furthermore, the birth of her children was found insufficient to qualify as extraordinary circumstances given that such difficulties are common among applicants. Regarding withholding of removal, the court affirmed the denial based on substantial evidence that the petitioner failed to meet the “more likely than not” standard for future persecution. The court noted that while the petitioner experienced a carjacking and received anonymous death threats against her father, these events did not constitute significant physical harm or past persecution, and unfulfilled threats are rarely sufficient to establish a clear probability of future persecution. The court declined to address other potential grounds for relief as the failure to show likelihood of persecution was dispositive. Regarding CAT relief, the court affirmed the denial because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Brazilian government would acquiesce in torture. The court reasoned that evidence of general government ineffectiveness in investigating and preventing crime does not satisfy the legal requirement for official acquiescence. Additionally, the court rejected the petitioner’s due process argument regarding the BIA’s summary affirmance, noting this claim is foreclosed by Ninth Circuit precedent. The practical consequence is that the petition for review is denied, and the temporary stay of removal remains in place only until the mandate issues; any motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.