Vargas Sanchez v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 16, 2026
• Docket: 22-1584
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESSICA YUNUEN VARGAS SANCHEZ, No. 22-1584 Agency No. Petitioner, A201-902-642 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 14, 2026** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GRABER, HURWITZ, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Jessica Yunuen Vargas Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying a motion

to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.

* 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). Fonseca-Fonseca v. Garland, 76 F.4th 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 2023). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

1. A petitioner seeking reopening must “establish prima facie eligibility for

the relief sought.” Gonzalez-Lara v. Garland, 104 F.4th 1109, 1116 (9th Cir. 2024).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Vargas failed to establish

prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Vargas submitted five

news articles in support of her motion to reopen, which generally describe Mexican

cartel violence and government corruption. But those articles, considered along with

the remaining evidence in the record, do not show a nexus to a protected ground. See

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free

from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Vargas asserts that the articles

demonstrate “open political hostility” toward her political party, but four of the

articles do not mention the party, and the final article describes a dispute between

Mexican officials about American politics and says nothing about persecution

against ordinary party members. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483

(1992) (explaining that a petitioner must show that he was persecuted because of his

political opinion, not merely that he has one). 1

1 Vargas asserts, without citation to the record, that she presented evidence she was “explicitly targeted” based on “political affiliation.” But a motion to reopen is not an invitation to review the record; it must be based on “new facts.” 8 C.F.R.

2 22-1584 2. The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Vargas failed

to establish prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). Generalized evidence of “crime and police corruption” does not establish

the “particularized risk of torture” necessary for CAT relief. See Tzompantzi-Salazar

v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 706–07 (9th Cir. 2022). Nor does the evidence undermine

the agency’s conclusion that Vargas was able to safely relocate within Mexico. See

id. at 707; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii).

3. We reject, as unsupported by the record, Vargas’s assertions that the BIA

ignored evidence and failed to consider the cumulative evidence in the record.

4. Finally, we decline to consider Vargas’s arguments that she has shown a

pattern or practice of persecution and that she is a member of a disfavored group

because she failed to exhaust those arguments to the BIA. See Umana-Escobar v.

Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.2

§ 1003.2(c)(1). Regardless, the record contains no such evidence. Vargas testified that her political opinion was only one of her three “theories” about why a cartel targeted her family. 2 The stay of removal will be vacated on issuance of the mandate.

3 22-1584