Case Explained: ORTIZ CARBAJAL V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-16 The Ninth Circuit denied Damaris Raquel Ortiz Carbajal’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied a substantial evidence standard of review to the agency’s findings regarding nexus, persecution, and CAT eligibility. Regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court held that the record did not compel the conclusion that the gang members’ threats were motivated by a protected ground rather than financial gain. Citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) and 1231(b)(3)(A), the panel found no nexus between the harm and the petitioner’s proposed particular social groups (such as “Salvadoran government informants” or “Salvadoran landowners”) or her alleged anti-gang political opinion. The court determined that the gang targeted the petitioner primarily to extort money related to her mother’s land, noting that criminal misconduct motivated by money does not qualify for immigration relief even if the victim belongs to a protected group. Furthermore, the record did not support the claim that the gang singled her out based on gender or that general country conditions regarding violence against women rose to the level of persecution. The court also declined to consider new particular social groups asserted for the first time in the appellate brief due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Regarding CAT relief, the court found the record did not compel a conclusion that the petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured upon return. Applying the standard from *Garcia-Milian v. Holder*, the panel determined that the two non-physical encounters with gang members did not constitute “extreme and prolonged cruel and inhuman treatment.” Additionally, the petitioner failed to provide evidence showing a particularized risk of torture higher than that faced by the average Salvadoran citizen or establishing a greater-than-fifty-percent chance of being tortured. As a practical consequence, the petition for review is denied, and the petitioner’s motion to stay removal pending appeal is also denied, leaving the agency’s order denying relief in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.