9th Cir.

Duran Morales v. Blanche

June 29, 2026 ·24-5018 ·Unpublished · By Raj Patel

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision rejecting asylum and Convention Against Torture claims. The court found the petitioner forfeited arguments regarding her proposed social group and that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that the Mexican government would not acquiesce to her alleged torture.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:21

Background

Mirella Duran Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Morales proposed a particular social group defined as victims of domestic violence from the father of her children.

The court’s reasoning

The panel unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument. Regarding asylum and withholding claims, the court held that Morales forfeited her challenge to the Board’s determination that her proposed particular social group was impermissibly circular because she failed to make any argument challenging that determination in her opening brief. The court noted that a group defined exclusively by the harm suffered is circular. Regarding Convention Against Torture relief, the court applied a substantial evidence standard and found the record did not compel the conclusion that the Mexican government would acquiesce to her torture. The court observed that Morales’s country conditions evidence showed the Mexican government was taking active measures to quell the harm, and acquiescence cannot be inferred merely because officials remain willfully blind to harm they are actively fighting.

What it means going forward

The denial of the petition leaves in place the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection to the petitioner.