Case Explained: MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-09

The Ninth Circuit denied Daniel Soloman Martinez-Hernandez’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied a substantial evidence standard to the agency’s factual findings and de novo review to legal questions. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding no evidence of Martinez-Hernandez’s mental incompetency, noting he demonstrated a rational understanding of the proceedings and testified consistently with his application. Regarding his asylum claim, the court found the BIA properly determined Martinez-Hernandez waived any challenge to the timeliness of his application because his pro se brief failed to provide specific arguments regarding extraordinary circumstances excusing the delay. The court further upheld the BIA’s classification of his Idaho felony conviction for injury to a child as a “particularly serious crime,” rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal, based on the nature of the offense and the sentence imposed. Additionally, the court ruled that Martinez-Hernandez failed to exhaust his procedural due process argument concerning the IJ’s reliance on hearsay in a probable cause affidavit. Finally, the court found substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Martinez-Hernandez did not meet the “more likely than not” standard required for CAT protection, as his testimony contradicted claims of current threats from the Los Zetas cartel or Guatemalan military. The practical consequence is that the petition for review is denied, and while a temporary stay of removal remains in effect, it will terminate once the mandate issues.

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