Case Explained: CENORBE, ET AL. V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-14

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Magalie Cenorbe and Wadner Raphael challenging a Board of Immigration Appeals order that affirmed an Immigration Judge’s denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s adverse credibility determinations regarding both petitioners. Specifically, the court found that Cenorbe made significant inconsistencies regarding the timeline of her relationship with her abusive ex-partner and her entry into the United States, while Raphael provided conflicting testimony about the specific dates of attacks on his family compared to police reports. Because these credibility findings were fatal to their asylum and withholding of removal claims, the court further held that the remaining record did not compel a grant of CAT relief, as the petitioners failed to present individualized evidence demonstrating they would face torture by or with the acquiescence of the Haitian government upon removal. Consequently, the petition is denied, and while the existing stay of removal remains in effect until the mandate issues, any pending motion for a stay is otherwise denied.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.