Case Explained: RODRIGUEZ ROMERO, ET AL. V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-26 The Ninth Circuit denied the petitions for review filed by Maria Elvira Rodriguez Romero and her four children, who sought asylum and withholding of removal based on past persecution by a narcotics trafficker in Guatemala and a fear of future persecution. The court applied the substantial evidence standard to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ factual findings and legal determinations regarding eligibility for relief. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Agency’s finding that the Guatemalan government was not unable or unwilling to protect Rodriguez from the trafficker and his associates, noting that police efforts to capture and prosecute the suspect demonstrated state control despite initial delays. Consequently, the court found Rodriguez failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because her claim relied on past persecution where the government was deemed capable of protection. The court further determined that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in relying on *Matter of A-B-* and that the Immigration Judge’s comments did not demonstrate bias or prejudgment. The practical consequence is that the Agency’s order denying the applications for asylum and withholding of removal remains in effect, though a temporary stay of removal continues to be in place until the mandate issues. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.