Case Explained: ODEL SARANTES-MARIN V. TODD BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-09

The ninth-circuit denied Odel Alberto Sarantes-Marin’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal regarding the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied the substantial evidence standard to factual findings and de novo review to constitutional claims. Regarding the substantive claims, the court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s adverse credibility finding based on significant inconsistencies between Sarantes’ credible fear interview statements—where he attributed potential harm to his grandfather’s political role rather than his own—and his later testimony claiming active membership in the Independent Liberal Party. The court also noted unexplained omissions regarding a 2010 beating and demonstration. Because Sarantes failed to meet his burden of proof through independent documentary evidence, the denial of withholding of removal was upheld. Similarly, the denial of CAT relief was affirmed because, absent credible testimony, the record did not compel the conclusion that he would more likely than not be tortured upon removal to Nicaragua. On the procedural claim, the court rejected Sarantes’ due process argument that the Immigration Judge acted as an advocate. The court found no violation because the record showed the IJ addressed Sarantes’ explanations for inconsistencies, asked further questions, and provided opportunities to discuss flaws in his statements; the IJ’s ultimate disagreement with Sarantes’ testimony was deemed inherent to the adjudicative process rather than advocacy. As a result of these holdings, the petition is denied and the BIA’s order dismissing the relief requests remains in effect.

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