9th Circuit denied a Mexican citizen's petition, finding he failed to show it was more…
Ricardo Avila-Garcia v. Todd Blanche
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit denied a Mexican citizen's petition, finding he failed to show it was more likely than not he'd be tortured if deported to Mexico.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit denied Ricardo Avila-Garcia's petition to halt his removal to Mexico, upholding the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision that he did not qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court found that his fear of being targeted by criminal groups because he would appear American was too speculative to meet the legal standard. The court also found he did not show that Mexican authorities would participate in or allow his torture.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Ricardo Avila-Garcia, who will face removal to Mexico. More broadly, it reflects the legal standards applied to immigrants seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture, particularly those whose fears are based on general country conditions rather than personal history of harm.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 21, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 21, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 21, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Ricardo Avila-Garcia, a Mexican citizen who had lived in the United States since age six, sought protection under the Convention Against Torture to avoid being removed to Mexico. He argued that criminal groups would target him for kidnapping or extortion because his clothing, speech, and behavior would mark him as American. He also raised a separate concern about his mental health condition making him a target. The court applied the 'substantial evidence' standard of review, meaning it would uphold the agency's decision unless the evidence compelled a different conclusion. On the question of likely torture, the court found that Avila's fears were based only on general conditions he had heard or read about, not personal experience or any actual harm that had occurred to him. Because his fear was speculative, it did not meet the legal requirement of showing torture was 'more likely than not.' On the question of government acquiescence, Avila pointed to a Country Report noting police and military involvement in serious human rights abuses in Mexico. The court acknowledged this but also noted the same report described Mexican laws criminalizing official corruption and numerous ongoing investigations into police corruption at multiple levels of government. The court concluded this mixed evidence did not compel a finding that the Mexican government would acquiesce in his torture. Avila's argument about his mental health condition was not considered on the merits because he had not raised it before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Courts generally require issues to be raised at earlier stages before they can be reviewed, and this argument was therefore unexhausted. The three-judge panel was unanimous in denying the petition. The ruling does not create binding precedent, as the court designated it as not appropriate for publication under its own rules.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICARDO AVILA-GARCIA, No. 17-70005 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-319-746 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Ricardo Avila-Garcia (“Avila”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, see Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021), we deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Avila failed to establish that it is “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if removed to Mexico. See Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 639 (9th Cir. 2022). Avila argues that he would be a target for kidnapping or extortion by criminal groups in Mexico because, having lived in the United States since he was six years old, he would be treated as if he were an American with his distinctive dress style, speech, and behavior. Avila’s evidence concerned only the general conditions that he had heard or read about, rather than on personal knowledge or any actual instance of harm to him. His “speculative fear of torture is insufficient to satisfy the ‘more likely than not’ standard.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1148 (9th Cir. 2021). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Avila had failed to show that Mexican authorities will participate in or acquiesce to the torture of deportees from the United States. Instead, he only offered “[g]eneralized evidence of violence” in Mexico, which “is itself insufficient to establish that anyone in the government would acquiesce to a petitioner’s torture.” B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 845 (9th Cir. 2022). Avila cites the Country Report’s reference to “[s]ignificant human rights-related problems includ[ing] police and 2 military involvement in serious abuses.” But the Country Report also states that Mexican law provides criminal penalties for official corruption and that there were “numerous investigations into corruption by police at the federal, state, and local level.” Thus, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that the government would acquiesce in any torture.1 PETITION DENIED.2 1 Avila also argues that he fears being singled out for harm due to his mental health condition. Because this argument was not raised before the BIA, it is unexhausted. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). 2 The motion for a stay of removal, Dkt. No. 1, is denied. The temporary stay of removal is lifted. 3
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.