Case Explained: ROHIT V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-05 The ninth-circuit denied Rohit Rohit’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied the substantial evidence standard to review the agency’s adverse credibility determination and its findings regarding eligibility for relief. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that Rohit lacked credibility due to material inconsistencies between his application and hearing testimony concerning the affiliation of his attackers, omissions in his written materials regarding threats by police and travel to Dubai, and his voluntary return to India prior to fleeing. Because the agency’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence, the court further held that substantial evidence also supported the BIA’s determination that Rohit failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief, as his claim rested on evidence deemed not credible and he identified no other evidence compelling a conclusion that he was more likely than not to be tortured. Consequently, the petition is denied and the agency’s order remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.