Case Explained: VEGA-OSUNA V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 The Ninth Circuit dismissed the petition for review because it lacked jurisdiction over the case. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), the court can only review a final order of removal; however, a negative reasonable fear determination by an Immigration Judge is not a final order of removal and does not merge into one. Since the petitioner failed to challenge his underlying 2013 removal order or the reinstatement decision, the court had no authority to hear the appeal. Even assuming jurisdiction existed, the court found the petitioner’s claim lacked merit under the substantial evidence standard. The Immigration Judge determined that the petitioner failed to establish a nexus between the feared harm and a protected ground, that internal relocation was unreasonable, or that he faced a more likely than not risk of torture by Los Linieros or Mexican police. The court held that generalized concerns about violence in Mexico and speculative assertions regarding government corruption were insufficient to meet the legal standard for a reasonable fear of torture. As a result, the petition is dismissed without reaching the merits of the asylum claim. A temporary stay of removal remains in effect only until the mandate issues; otherwise, the motion to stay removal is denied. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.