Case Explained: JOSSUE HERNANDEZ-ALVARADO V. TODD BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-06 The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of the petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied a standard of review where legal conclusions are examined de novo and factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court held that the Agency did not err in finding the petitioner ineligible because he failed to establish a cognizable particular social group (PSG) or any other protected ground. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Agency’s determination that the petitioner’s proposed PSGs lacked particularity. Specifically, the group of “young Salvadorian males who oppose gang and cartel membership due to Catholic beliefs” was deemed insufficiently particular under Ninth Circuit precedent, as was the group of persons from El Salvador “returning from the United States” and “perceived as being wealthy.” The court cited *Reyes v. Lynch* and *Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch*, noting that groups defined by deportation status or imputed wealth are too amorphous and diffuse to qualify, and the record did not show gangs single out returnees based on perceived wealth. Regarding CAT protection, the court affirmed the Agency’s determination that the petitioner was ineligible because he failed to demonstrate that government officials would likely acquiesce in his torture. The court noted substantial evidence supporting the finding that while there is some corruption, Salvadoran government efforts to combat gang activity are significant, and the petitioner’s failure to report incidents or follow up with police undermined his claim. The practical consequence of this decision is that the petition for review is denied, and the removal order remains in effect, though a temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.