Case Explained: RODRIGUEZ-NOGUERA, ET AL. V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-29 The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Nicaraguan nationals seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied the “substantial evidence” standard of review to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision, holding that the record did not compel a finding that the petitioners suffered past persecution or faced a well-founded fear of future persecution. Regarding asylum and withholding claims, the court found that threats received by the primary petitioner were not accompanied by physical harm, ceased before he left Nicaragua, and did not amount to persecution under Ninth Circuit precedent; furthermore, alleged economic disadvantages from job rejections were insufficient to constitute persecution given his ability to survive with family assistance. The court also determined there was no credible evidence of an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution based on political opinion, as the record showed no government interest in targeting him or labeling him a traitor beyond generalized country violence. Regarding CAT relief, the court affirmed that the petitioners failed to meet the “more likely than not” standard for torture by public officials, noting that threats alone do not constitute torture and that their evidence of country conditions was too generalized to establish a particularized risk. Consequently, the petition is denied, and the motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.