9th Cir.

Brandon Cuellar Cabrera v. Todd Blanche

July 13, 2026 ·19-73173 ·Unpublished · By Raj Patel

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision rejecting asylum and related relief. The court found the petitioner forfeited key arguments and failed to prove the required nexus between gang threats and his family membership.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:33

Background

Brandon Isaias Cuellar Cabrera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The petitioner alleged threats from Barrio Eighteen gang members due to his relationship with his brothers, who had resisted gang recruitment.

The court’s reasoning

The panel unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument. The court first addressed forfeiture, noting that failure to make any argument or meaningfully challenge a determination in an opening brief constitutes forfeiture. The petitioner’s brief did not challenge the Board’s determinations regarding his proposed particular social group of Salvadoran youths resistant to gang recruitment, ineligibility for withholding of removal, or ineligibility for Convention Against Torture protection. Regarding asylum, the court applied the substantial evidence standard to review the agency’s factual findings. The petitioner asserted he was threatened exclusively because of his relationship with his two brothers. However, the Board concluded the threats were because the gang was trying to recruit him. The court found the record did not compel a contrary conclusion, noting that gang members controlled the area and threatened everybody. The court determined the gang’s identification of the petitioner and his brothers as brothers was simply an instrumentality to accomplish their goals of controlling the area and monitoring potential recruits. Therefore, the petitioner could not demonstrate the necessary nexus between his harms and his proposed particular social group.

What it means going forward

The petitioner’s temporary stay of removal will dissolve when the mandate issues.