Edgar Batres-Alvarado v. Todd Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 15, 2026
• Docket: 16-72280
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 15 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS EDGAR AMADOR BATRES- No. 16-72280 ALVARADO; VICTORIA VILLEGAS- ACUNA; GALA VICTORIA BATRES- Agency Nos. A200-790-876 VILLEGAS, A200-790-877 A200-790-878 Petitioners,

v. ORDER

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

Before: BENNETT and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, * District Judge.

The memorandum disposition filed March 16, 2026, is hereby amended. The

amended memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.

* The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGAR AMADOR BATRES- No. 16-72280 ALVARADO; VICTORIA VILLEGAS- ACUNA; GALA VICTORIA BATRES- Agency Nos. A200-790-876 VILLEGAS, A200-790-877 A200-790-878 Petitioners,

v. AMENDED MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 12, 2026** Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: BENNETT and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, *** District Judge.

Petitioner Edgar Amador Batres Alvarado and his wife and daughter,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. Victoria Villegas Acuna and Gala Victoria Batres-Villegas, natives and citizens of

Mexico, petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their

applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

To the extent the BIA “adopts or relies on the IJ’s reasoning,” we review

both agency decisions. Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2019). The

agency’s findings on internal relocation are reviewed for substantial evidence,

Singh v. Bondi, 161 F.4th 560, 565 (9th Cir. 2025), and legal questions are

reviewed de novo, Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.

2023). Under the “highly deferential substantial evidence standard . . . the agency’s

findings of fact are considered ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id. (quoting Ruiz-Colmenares v.

Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022)).

An applicant for asylum must show either that he “has suffered past

persecution” or that he “has a well-founded fear of future persecution.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.13(a)–(b). An applicant “does not have a well-founded fear of persecution

if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the

applicant’s country of nationality” and “under all the circumstances, it would be

reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); cf.

2 Akosung v. Barr, 970 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2020). In assessing whether

relocation is reasonable, the adjudicator must conduct an “individualized analysis”

and consider factors like “potential harm in the suggested relocation area, ongoing

civil strife in the country, and social and cultural constraints, among others.” Singh

v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367

F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2004) (further discussing reasonableness factors for

internal relocation). Because Batres-Alvarado “has not established past

persecution, ‘[he] bear[s] the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable

for him [] to relocate.’” Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir.

2011) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i)).

Batres-Alvarado, a former federal police officer, argues that the IJ failed to

correctly apply the law regarding the reasonableness of internal relocation. We

disagree. In determining that Batres-Alvarado could relocate to Mexico City, the IJ

evaluated his individual circumstances, appropriately relied on record evidence and

relevant precedent, and applied the correct legal standard. The IJ considered factors

such as Batres-Alvarado’s prior connection to Mexico City, the geographical reach

of Los Zetas, the distance from Zacatecas to Mexico City, and whether Los Zetas

and other cartels routinely target former government officials throughout Mexico.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s internal relocation determination.

While Petitioners have presented evidence that Los Zetas operate heavily in

3 Zacatecas, the record does not indicate that the group has similar influence in

Mexico City or would pursue Batres-Alvarado there. The record does not indicate

that Los Zetas are looking for Batres-Alvarado or that he has received any threats,

and he testified that he would not be recognized as a former police officer in

Mexico City. Batres-Alvarado fears that corrupt government officials or former

colleagues may share his identity or whereabouts with cartels, but he testified he

has had no contact with these colleagues since he left Mexico, and the record

contains no evidence of their motivations for harming him or of their current

connection to armed groups. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (uncorroborated credible

testimony must be persuasive and refer to “specific facts”); see Aguilar Fermin v.

Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that a petitioner bears the burden

of supplying “specific facts” to prove eligibility for asylum). Under the deferential

substantial evidence standard, the record before us does not compel a conclusion

contrary to the agency’s determination.

PETITION DENIED.1

1 The stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues. The motion for stay of removal is otherwise denied.