Meraz Farias v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 17, 2026
• Docket: 25-4163
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS D. MERAZ FARIAS, No. 25-4163 Agency No. Petitioner, A215-671-008 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 17, 2026** Portland, Oregon

Before: OWENS, VANDYKE, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Luis David Meraz Farias, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from

an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* 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). We have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal issued by the BIA under 8

U.S.C. § 1252 and affirm.

1. Farias failed to exhaust his challenges to the IJ’s denial of asylum and

withholding of removal. We “may review a final order of removal only if … the

alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” 8

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Suate-Orellana v. Garland, 101 F.4th 624, 629 (9th

Cir. 2024) (explaining that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement is a

mandatory rule if raised by the government). “To exhaust a claim, the noncitizen

must put the BIA on notice of the challenge, and the BIA must have ‘an opportunity

to pass on the issue.’” Suate-Orellana, 101 F.4th at 629 (quoting Zhang v. Ashcroft,

388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)).

Farias’s two-page appellate brief before the BIA includes no statement that

could have put the BIA on notice that Farias was challenging the IJ’s nexus finding.

Farias’s failure to exhaust his claim before the agency bars our court’s review. Id.

Additionally, Farias failed to challenge the BIA’s finding of waiver in his opening

brief before our court, which forfeits any argument against that waiver

determination. Lui v. DeJoy, 129 F.4th 770, 780 (explaining that

“arguments … omitted from the opening brief are usually deemed forfeited”)

(citation omitted). This forfeiture and failure to exhaust are fatal to Farias’s

2 25-4163 applications for both asylum and withholding of removal. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v.

Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023).

2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. CAT

“provides mandatory relief for any immigrant who can demonstrate that ‘it is more

likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country

of removal.’” Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland, 62 F.4th 1186, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2023)

(quoting Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821, 826 (9th Cir. 2004)).

Farias was threatened once in Mexico but never physically harmed, which

standing alone fails to rise to the level of torture. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918

F.3d 1025, 1029–30 (9th Cir. 2019). The fact that Farias’s family members continue

to live in his hometown in Mexico unharmed also lends support to the agency’s

denial of CAT relief. See Gomez Fernandez v. Barr, 969 F.3d 1077, 1091 (9th Cir.

2020). Moreover, Farias merely speculated that he could not relocate safely within

the country of Mexico, which also supports the denial of CAT relief. See Xiao Fei

Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011); Tzompantzi-Salazar v.

Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 705 (9th Cir. 2022). And Farias similarly offered only

conjecture that the Knights Templar threatened him “at the instigation of, or with the

consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other

person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). On this record, a

3 25-4163 reasonable factfinder could conclude that Farias failed to satisfy his burden of

demonstrating eligibility for CAT relief.

PETITION DENIED.1

1 Farias’s opposed motion to stay removal pending appeal (Dkt. No. 3) is denied.

4 25-4163