Case Explained: ALVES PEREIRA, ET AL. V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 The ninth-circuit denied the petition for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied a de novo standard to questions of law and reviewed factual findings for substantial evidence, defined as administrative findings that are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise. Regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that anonymous threats received by the petitioner during her work as a legal aide did not rise to the level of persecution, noting that unfulfilled threats rarely constitute persecution absent significant actual suffering or harm. Furthermore, the court found no well-founded fear of future persecution because the petitioner had severed ties with the law firm and the controversial criminal case she assisted in had concluded with a conviction and sentence exceeding thirty years. The court also held that the petitioners forfeited any challenge to the denial of CAT relief by failing to raise the issue in their opening brief. Finally, the court rejected the due process claim regarding alleged errors in the hearing transcript, ruling that the record did not show the transcript was so incomplete as to prevent a full and fair hearing or that the petitioner suffered substantial prejudice from indiscernible portions or clarification requests made by the interpreter. As a result of this decision, the petition for review is denied and the BIA’s order remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.