Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rosalba Albarran Jaimes and her minor son, natives and citizens of Mexico, petitioned the Ninth Circuit to review a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. Albarran's claims rested on threats by a criminal cartel and on a rape by a man who falsely promised her a job and a place to stay. The agency found that the cartel was motivated not by her political opinion or social group membership but by a financial interest in coercing payment or service from her and others in her town.
The panel of Judges Christen, Hurwitz, and Bade decided the case by unpublished memorandum on October 20, 2026, after argument on October 5. The court reviews factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo, and the agency's findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise. The proposed particular social group was Mexican women, and the agency assumed that it was cognizable. Albarran also challenged the weight given to her expert and argued that the immigration judge's questioning violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition. On asylum and withholding of removal, it held that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that Albarran did not show a nexus between her past or feared harm and a protected characteristic. On political opinion, the agency appropriately considered the record without mischaracterizing it, and it was not required to analyze mixed motives because it found no nexus to political opinion. Albarran was never threatened or harmed for witnessing a cartel murder or talking to police; her husband was not harmed after refusing the cartel's demands, and the evidence did not indicate the cartel knew of their relationship; and she was not harmed after attending meetings about securing her town.
As to the proposed group of Mexican women, the court said the record could reasonably be read to show that Albarran was the victim of a criminal act and a target of opportunity, and she pointed to no evidence compelling the conclusion that her attacker was motivated by her membership in that group. It found no legal error: the agency reasonably gave less weight to the expert's opinions on future risk because some conclusions conflicted with other evidence and the immigration judge explained why; it considered both direct and circumstantial evidence; and the Board applied the correct standard of review.
On CAT relief, substantial evidence supported the finding that Albarran did not show it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed. On due process, she had to show error and substantial prejudice and did not; although the immigration judge asked numerous questions, they aimed to develop the record rather than harass her. The petition was denied outright, without remand, and the court also denied the opposed motion to stay removal and lifted the temporary stay entered under General Order 6.4(c).
Key Takeaways
- Cartel threats that the agency reasonably attributes to financial extortion can defeat the nexus element for asylum and withholding, even where the petitioner points to civic involvement or witnessing a crime.
- A petitioner challenging a finding that a rape was a crime of opportunity must identify record evidence compelling the conclusion that membership in the proposed group, here Mexican women, motivated the attacker.
- An agency that finds no nexus to a protected ground need not separately conduct a mixed-motive analysis.
- An agency may give an expert's future-risk opinions less weight when they conflict with other record evidence, provided it states its reasons.
- Extensive questioning by an immigration judge does not show a due process violation without both error and substantial prejudice, and questions that develop the record are not harassment.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished memorandum disposition that is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. It binds no later panel and mainly shows how the court applies established standards to a particular record. It does not decide whether Mexican women constitute a cognizable particular social group, because the agency assumed that point in Albarran's favor.
Practically, the ruling shows how hard it is to overturn nexus findings in cartel-extortion and sexual-violence cases when the record permits a criminal-motive reading, because substantial evidence review is extremely deferential. The petition was denied and the stay of removal was lifted, so the memorandum leaves the removal order in place; it does not address any relief outside the claims presented.