Case Explained: BUSTOS-ALONSO V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-05 The ninth-circuit granted the petitions in part, dismissed them in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding Rafael Bustos-Alonso’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that while the petitioner had forfeited his challenge to the denial of asylum and withholding of removal before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the failure to exhaust was excused because an appeal on those grounds would have been futile under binding precedent at the time, and the BIA erred in finding forfeiture given the petitioner’s pro se status and the specific arguments raised. Furthermore, the court noted that the Supreme Court’s en banc decision in *United States v. Gomez* overruled prior precedent categorically barring asylum for convictions under California Penal Code section 245(a), and a state court subsequently vacated the petitioner’s domestic violence convictions due to procedural errors, meaning he no longer stands convicted of an aggravated felony or particularly serious crime for immigration purposes. Consequently, the agency must reconsider his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Regarding the Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim, the court denied relief, finding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a likelihood of future torture, citing the age of the threat against his father and the feasibility of safe relocation within Mexico. The court also affirmed the denial of motions to reopen for cancellation of removal, ruling that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the initial motion due to a failure to attach a completed application and in denying the request for an extension as untimely. Additionally, the court dismissed challenges to the denial of reconsideration and sua sponte reopening, finding the petitioner could not establish a reasonable likelihood of success regarding the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard required for cancellation of removal and that the BIA had applied correct legal principles. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.