Case Explained: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEYLIN ORTEGA VILLALBA v. TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-10 The sixth-circuit denied the petition for review seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), as well as a challenge to the immigration judge’s rescission of administrative closure. The court held that Ortega Villalba forfeited review of dispositive grounds supporting the denial of relief because arguments not meaningfully developed in an opening brief are forfeited, specifically failing to challenge the agency’s no-nexus ruling, social-group cognizability, and future-persecution findings for asylum and withholding claims under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A) and 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), while her CAT claim was forfeited due to a conclusory sentence failing to address torture or official acquiescence requirements under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2) and 1208.18(a)(1). On the due process claim regarding administrative closure, the court applied the standard requiring a showing of prejudice—that a procedural defect led to a substantially different outcome—and found none because administrative closure is discretionary and the immigration judge relied on independent case-management reasons for rescission, including the age of proceedings and completed merits hearing. The court further found no evidence of judicial bias under *Liteky v. United States*. As a result, 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.