Case Explained: SAUCEDO-HERNANDEZ, ET AL. V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by eight Mexican nationals seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that substantial evidence supported the Immigration Judge’s determination that the petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground or a likelihood of future torture. The court applied the “substantial evidence” standard of review, treating the Immigration Judge’s order as the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision since the BIA adopted the lower ruling without disagreement. Regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court found no nexus between the petitioners’ fears and their proposed particular social groups (members of the Saucedo family, single women with several daughters, or sons at risk of gang recruitment). The record indicated that the petitioners feared generalized crime and violence rather than targeted persecution based on a protected ground. Furthermore, because the petitioners had not personally experienced violence and the record did not establish the perpetrators’ motive regarding their family members, the court concluded they failed to meet the burden of proof for either form of relief. Regarding CAT protection, the court applied the “more likely than not” standard for future torture with government acquiescence. The court determined that the petitioners had not personally experienced past harm in Mexico and that the record did not compel a conclusion that they would be tortured in the future. Additionally, the court found no evidence of government acquiescence; the petitioners’ testimony regarding their family’s kidnapping suggested government involvement in securing release rather than indifference or participation in torture. The court clarified that general governmental ineffectiveness in investigating crime does not satisfy the requirement for acquiescence. The practical consequence is that the petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing the petitioners’ applications remains in effect. While a stay of removal was maintained until the mandate issues, the petitioners’ motion to stay removal was otherwise denied. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.