Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Miguel Carballo-Delcid, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge's order denying withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. His withholding claim rested on membership in a particular social group, which the panel described as his nuclear family. The panel decided the case without oral argument after submission on October 30, 2026, and issued an unpublished memorandum disposition.
The memorandum states that the parties know the facts and does not recount them, so the record details here are limited to what the court discussed. The court had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Carballo-Delcid testified that he feared the general conditions of violence in Honduras, and he offered country conditions evidence describing violence there. Because the BIA issued its own decision while adopting particular parts of the IJ's reasoning, the court reviewed both decisions. It reviewed factual findings for substantial evidence, reversing only if the record compels a contrary conclusion, and reviewed legal conclusions de novo.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition for review. On withholding of removal, it held that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that Carballo-Delcid did not establish a nexus between the feared persecution and his membership in his nuclear family. He bore the burden of showing by objective evidence that persecution was more likely than not, and of showing that the protected ground was a reason, though not necessarily the one central reason, for the feared persecution.
The panel reasoned that his stated fear of general conditions of violence could not support a likelihood of specific future persecution. Citing circuit precedent, it explained that harm tied to grounds that apply to many others is not harm because of group membership, and that an applicant cannot prevail simply because many people in the country face oppressive conditions. Substantial evidence supported these findings, and he presented no other evidence compelling the conclusion that he or his family would likely face future persecution.
On the Convention Against Torture, the court held that substantial evidence also supported denial. An applicant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he will be tortured on return. The court recognized that failing to state a cognizable withholding claim does not by itself bar CAT eligibility, but reasoned that harm falling short of persecution necessarily falls short of torture. His country conditions evidence did not show gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights within Honduras that could support CAT relief even though withholding was denied. The court also denied his motion to stay removal.
Key Takeaways
- A fear of generalized violence in the country of removal does not, by itself, show the nexus needed for withholding of removal based on family membership.
- Harm tied to conditions that affect many people is not treated as harm because of membership in a particular social group.
- Losing a withholding claim does not automatically defeat a CAT claim, but harm below the persecution threshold necessarily falls short of torture.
- Country conditions evidence describing widespread violence did not, on this record, establish the gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations that can support CAT protection.
- The court denied both the petition for review and the motion to stay removal, leaving the agency's order in place as far as this memorandum is concerned.
Why It Matters
This is a short, unpublished memorandum disposition. It is not precedent except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, so it creates no binding authority and may be cited only as that rule permits. Its value lies in showing how a panel applies existing circuit decisions on nexus, generalized violence and the relationship between withholding and CAT claims.
The ruling is confined to the record before the court. The panel did not announce a new rule about family-based social groups and did not decide whether a nuclear family qualifies as a cognizable group in every case. It resolved the withholding claim on nexus, finding the fear tied to general conditions of violence rather than to targeting on account of family membership. The CAT ruling likewise rests on the absence of evidence showing torture or the kind of gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations described in the regulation. The memorandum describes no remaining issues or further proceedings; it resolves only the petition and the stay motion.