Case Explained: ALMARIO, ET AL. V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-26 The ninth-circuit denied the petition for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an Immigration Judge’s decision to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture for Cesar Augusto Almario and his family. The court applied the substantial evidence standard of review to the agency’s factual findings and legal conclusions regarding eligibility for these forms of relief. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that Almario failed to establish a nexus between feared persecution and a protected ground. Specifically, the court affirmed the finding that the proposed particular social group of “fathers of children between the ages of 12 and 17” was not socially distinct within Colombian society, as there was insufficient evidence that such a group is recognized as separate by the general public. Furthermore, the court upheld the rejection of claims based on imputed political opinion, ruling that Almario’s resistance to FARC demands to enlist his son constituted merely a refusal to comply with criminal activity rather than an expression of a political opinion hostile to the organization. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture, finding substantial evidence that it was not more likely than not that Almario would be tortured upon removal and that the Colombian government would not consent to or acquiesce in such torture. As a result of this ruling, the petition is denied, and the order of removal remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.