Case Explained: MAMEDOVA V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-25 The Ninth Circuit denied Angelina Mamedova’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision rejecting her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court applied the substantial evidence standard to review the Agency’s factual determinations and legal conclusions regarding whether Mamedova established a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court held that substantial evidence supports the Agency’s finding that Mamedova’s fear was not objectively reasonable because it was speculative. This conclusion was based on her ability to travel abroad, voluntarily return to Russia, and depart again without interference after making a donation to a humanitarian organization in Ukraine. Additionally, the record indicated she had no personal contact with police, was not formally charged or summoned, and her mother has resided safely in Russia without further government contact. The court also rejected Mamedova’s arguments that the Agency misinterpreted her asylum claim, improperly discounted her testimony, or failed to consider evidence submitted, noting that the Immigration Judge properly considered all evidence and applied the correct legal standard requiring fear to be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. A pending motion to reopen based on new evidence was not before the court for review. As a result of the denial, Mamedova’s request for immigration relief is rejected, and she remains subject to removal proceedings, though a temporary stay of removal remains in effect until the mandate issues. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.