Case Explained: ARAGON LEMA DE MORALES, ET AL. V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Milagros del Pilar Aragon Lema de Morales and Miguel Angel Morales-Serrano, natives of Peru, seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to deny these forms of relief based on a substantial evidence review. Regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the court applied the standard that petitioners must prove a causal nexus between a statutorily protected characteristic and past or feared harm. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the Petitioners failed to establish this nexus regarding their claimed particular social group based on familial relations. The record indicated that the harm inflicted by the Petitioners’ former partner was motivated by a personal dispute arising from the termination of a romantic relationship, rather than persecution based on family membership. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence supporting the agency’s determination that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate that past persecution was committed by the government or forces the government was unable or unwilling to control. Specifically, the record showed that Miguel reported his abuser to police and obtained a civil protection order, while Milagros failed to provide convincing evidence that reporting would have been futile or subjected her to further abuse. Regarding CAT relief, the court applied the standard requiring a showing that it is “more likely than not” the petitioner would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, a public official. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate a likelihood of future torture with government acquiescence in Peru. The court rejected the argument that generalized country violence was sufficient to prove government acquiescence and found no error in the agency’s cumulative-effect review, noting that the agency had already considered the totality of the evidence regarding past harm. As a practical consequence, the petition for review is denied, and the Petitioners’ motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot, lifting any temporary stay and allowing for their removal to Peru.

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