9th Cir.

Mendieta-Mendoza v. Blanche

June 12, 2026 ·21-291 ·Unpublished · By Raj Patel

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of an immigration order denying withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protection. The court found substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that the petitioner faced no clear probability of persecution or torture upon return to Nicaragua.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:10

Background

Jose Mendieta-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s order. The Immigration Judge had denied his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Mendieta had deserted the Nicaraguan army in nineteen eighty-eight and remained in Nicaragua for three years afterward.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the agency’s decision for substantial evidence. It found that Mendieta safely remained in Nicaragua for three years after deserting the army, and desertions from the Sandinista army were widespread at that time. There was no evidence that the Nicaraguan government searched for him after nineteen eighty-nine or that the government currently persecutes individuals who deserted in the nineteen eighties. While the government has persecuted political protestors, there was no evidence Mendieta participated in protests or held a political opinion the government would know about. The court also found no evidence that it was more likely than not that Mendieta would be tortured if removed to Nicaragua.

What it means going forward

The petition for review is denied, leaving the agency’s denial of withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protection in place.