Case Explained: EUFRACIO HERRERA, ET AL. V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-12 The ninth-circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing appeals from an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and humanitarian asylum. The court held that substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination regarding the petitioner Herrera, citing omissions, inconsistencies in the scope of threats, lack of detail on newly asserted incidents, and demeanor observations, while noting that the delayed disclosure of sexual violence did not independently support the finding but was not required to do so given other concerns. The court further held that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief for the petitioner Eufracio because the record does not compel a conclusion that she suffered past persecution from her stalker’s conduct and there is no evidence he has attempted to contact her since she left Mexico, thereby failing to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. Additionally, the court found substantial evidence supporting the denial of CAT relief for Eufracio as the record did not establish it was more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a public official if returned to Mexico. Consequently, neither petitioner was eligible for humanitarian asylum due to the failure to establish past persecution. The practical consequence is that the petition is denied and the temporary stay of removal is terminated. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.