9th Cir.

Abrahamian Asfora v. Blanche

July 1, 2026 ·24-7678 ·Unpublished · By Raj Patel

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing an asylum claim. The court found substantial evidence supported the lower agency's determinations that the petitioner's claims were untimely and failed to meet the legal standards for relief.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 2:10

Background

Juliana Catel Abrahamian Asfora, a native of Brazil and dual citizen of Brazil and Italy, petitioned for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Board had summarily adopted the Immigration Judge’s decision without issuing its own opinion.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the Immigration Judge’s decision de novo for legal conclusions and for substantial evidence regarding factual findings. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of her asylum application, noting that the carjacking occurred years prior and her father’s political candidacy did not materially affect her eligibility. Regarding withholding of removal, the court found substantial evidence that the petitioner did not establish a clear probability of future persecution, as the threats were vague and her family remained safe in Brazil. The court also determined that general government ineffectiveness in Brazil did not constitute acquiescence to torture for Convention Against Torture purposes.

What it means going forward

The petition for review is denied, leaving the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing the asylum and related relief claims in place. A temporary stay of removal remains in effect until the mandate issues.