Mauricio Torres-Palacios v. Todd Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 21, 2026
• Docket: 20-73579
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAURICIO ELIAS TORRES-PALACIOS; No. 20-73579 MAURICIO NOE TORRES-REYES; ALLISON TORRES-REYES; SONIA Agency Nos. A209-893-525 ESTELA REYES-DE TORRES; JERSON A209-893-526 ELIAS TORRES-REYES, A209-893-527 A209-891-711 Petitioners, A209-891-712

v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 18, 2026** San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW, BEA, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Mauricio Elias Torres-Palacios, his wife, Sonia Estela Reyes-de

Torres, and their three children are natives and citizens of El Salvador. They

* 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). petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

affirming an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the

petition.

We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that it expressly

adopts the IJ’s reasoning. Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006).

Legal questions are reviewed de novo, Manzano v. Garland, 104 F.4th 1202, 1206

(9th Cir. 2024), and factual findings, including about a “persecutor’s motivations

for persecuting the petitioner,” are reviewed for substantial evidence, Rodriguez-

Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023). Under that “highly

deferential standard,” we reverse only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be

compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. at 1016 (quoting Ruiz-Colmenares v.

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

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum and

withholding of removal. Petitioners argue that their nuclear family constitutes a

particular social group, but they have failed to demonstrate a causal nexus between

their claimed persecution and their family membership. The record here shows that

petitioners faced threats from gang members demanding monthly payments after

the gang observed that Reyes-de Torres worked at her jewelry business and that the

2 family owned their land. Petitioners were only harmed when they refused to pay

the gang, and there is no indication that the gang’s threats continued from the

period of January 2015 to October 2016 when Petitioners met the extortion

demands. The record also shows that El Salvadorians outside of Petitioners’ family

are regularly harmed when gangs pursue payments in similar fashion. See

Rodriguez-Zuniga, 69 F.4th at 1020 n.2, 1025 (explaining that though some

persecutors may have “mixed motives,” there is no nexus where financial gain is

“the persecutor’s exclusive motivation”). Though the gang continued to target

Petitioners’ property and gang members beat Reyes-de Torres’s brother after

Petitioners fled, Reyes-de Torres testified that the gang beat him to obtain

information about Petitioners’ location. Id. at 1019–20 (finding no nexus where

targeting is used “only as an instrumental means to obtain money”). As the agency

determined, Petitioners have not sufficiently presented evidence of a nexus

between their persecution and a protected ground, and therefore both the asylum

and withholding of removal claims were appropriately denied. Id. at 1018

(“[W]here, as here, the agency concludes that the petitioner has not shown any

nexus whatsoever, then the petitioner fails to establish past persecution for both

asylum and withholding.”).

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection.

Petitioners have not pointed to any record evidence that they face a likelihood of

3 torture or that police would acquiesce to such torture. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988

F.3d 1136, 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that “a speculative fear of torture is

insufficient to satisfy the ‘more likely than not’ standard”). Petitioners have not

experienced torture in the past, and they did not contact police or other authorities

to report the threats they received. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034

(9th Cir. 2014) (holding that for CAT protection, a petitioner must show “evidence

of corruption or other inability or unwillingness to oppose criminal

organizations”). The evidence before us does not compel reversal of the BIA’s

denial of CAT relief.

PETITION DENIED.1

1 The temporary stay of removal remains in effect until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. 5) is otherwise denied.