Case Explained: CERNA V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 The Ninth Circuit denied William Edenilson Cerna’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The court applied the substantial evidence standard of review, under which factual findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise. Regarding the asylum claim, the court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that Cerna failed to meet the one-year statutory filing deadline. Although Cerna argued that the murder of his mother constituted extraordinary circumstances excusing the delay, the court declined to consider this argument because it was not raised before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and was therefore unexhausted. Regarding withholding of removal, the court found substantial evidence supported the denial based on Cerna’s failure to establish that his proposed “particular social group” met the legal requirements of being composed of members sharing a common immutable characteristic, defined with particularity, and socially distinct within the society in question. The court noted that Cerna forfeited his argument regarding a new social group (internally displaced persons) by failing to raise it before the BIA, and because he failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group, the court did not need to address his claims regarding past or future persecution. As a result of this decision, the petition for review is denied, and the BIA’s order affirming the denial of Cerna’s relief remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.