Case Explained: ARELLANO MARTINEZ V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-10 The ninth-circuit granted panel rehearing, withdrew its earlier June 26, 2026 memorandum by issuing a superseding amended memorandum, and barred any further rehearing petitions in the case. In the amended decision, the court granted in part and denied in part the petition for review of the BIA’s removal order. It held that the agency legally erred in treating the petitioner’s 18 U.S.C. § 545 conviction as a particularly serious crime for asylum and INA withholding purposes because, at step one of the particularly-serious-crime analysis, the agency must look to the elements of the offense, and it instead relied on the statute’s maximum sentence and on a prior moral-turpitude ruling—considerations that are not elements of the offense. The court also held that the agency legally erred in denying cancellation of removal because it failed to consider relevant evidence that the petitioner had accepted responsibility for her criminal conduct, including her plea agreement, presentence report, and below-guidelines sentence. The court denied relief under the Convention Against Torture, including both CAT withholding and CAT deferral. It applied the rule that CAT relief requires proof that torture is more likely than not, and when the claim depends on a chain of events, each link in that chain must itself be more likely than not. The court said the agency did not have to separately discuss the State Department’s Mexico human-rights report because it was cumulative and not potentially dispositive, and substantial evidence supported the agency’s findings that the petitioner had not shown the necessary chain of events was more likely than not. Because CAT relief failed on that ground, remand on CAT withholding would be futile even though the agency’s particularly-serious-crime analysis was erroneous. The practical result is that the case goes back to the BIA for further proceedings on asylum, withholding of removal under the INA, and cancellation of removal, while the denial of CAT protection remains in place. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.