9th Circuit denies petition from Mexican woman seeking asylum, ruling she failed to show her…
Montes Olea v. 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 denies petition from Mexican woman seeking asylum, ruling she failed to show her proposed social group was legally recognized or that Mexico was unable to protect her.
Why it matters
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Angeles Montes Olea's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that rejected her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court found that her proposed particular social group, 'Mexican women viewed as property,' was not legally cognizable because she did not show that Mexican society perceives that group as socially distinct. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the Mexican government was not unable or unwilling to protect her, given that police arrested her abusive partner and a judge offered her protection after she filed a police report.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Angeles Montes Olea, who will face removal to Mexico. More broadly, it reflects how the Ninth Circuit evaluates asylum claims from people fleeing domestic violence who propose gender-based particular social groups, which affects similarly situated immigrants seeking protection from the United States.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 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Unpublished opinion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 20, 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Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion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
Angeles Montes Olea, a Mexican citizen, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture after fleeing what she described as abuse by a partner in Mexico. An Immigration Judge denied all three forms of relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal. She then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review. The central legal question was whether Montes Olea qualified for asylum based on membership in a particular social group. She proposed the group 'Mexican women viewed as property.' The court reviewed whether this group is legally cognizable, meaning whether Mexican society recognizes it as a distinct group. The court found, applying a substantial evidence standard, that Montes Olea's documentary evidence showed that violence against women is widespread in Mexico but did not address how Mexican society specifically perceives 'Mexican women viewed as property' as a distinct group. The court drew a parallel to an earlier case, Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, where a nearly identical argument was rejected. The court also addressed whether the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to protect Montes Olea. It found substantial evidence supporting the agencies' conclusion that the government did respond: police arrested her partner after she filed a report, a judge gave her a private opportunity to speak, and authorities offered her a police escort. This response undercut her claim that Mexico would acquiesce in her persecution or torture. Because Montes Olea could not meet the lower burden required for asylum, the court held she also could not meet the higher burden for withholding of removal. Her Convention Against Torture claim likewise failed because the record did not compel a finding that the Mexican government would acquiesce in her torture, given the police and judicial response already described. Judge VanDyke wrote separately in a concurrence to note that, in his view, the temporary stay of removal should not remain in place because Montes Olea showed no likelihood of success on the merits. The majority left the stay in place until the court's mandate issues. This decision is marked not for publication and is not binding precedent under Ninth Circuit rules.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGELES MONTES OLEA, No. 21-99 Agency No. Petitioner, A215-819-437 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 30, 2026** Before: GOULD, RAWLINSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Concurrence by Judge VanDyke. Angeles Montes Olea (Montes Olea), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of a decision from the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her * 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). applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. The BIA assumed Montes Olea’s credibility.1 Nevertheless, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Montes Olea was not eligible for asylum and withholding of removal “because she did not establish that any past and future feared persecution was or will be on account of a protected ground.” The BIA also agreed that Montes Olea’s proposed particular social groups (PSGs) were not cognizable, and that she “did not meet her burden of establishing that the Mexican government is unable or unwilling to protect her.” For the same reason (lack of government acquiescence), the BIA determined that Montes Olea did not demonstrate eligibility for protection under the CAT. 1. “Whether a particular social group is cognizable is a question of law that we review de novo, although the issue of social distinction—whether there is evidence that a specific society recognizes a social group—is a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence. . . .” Aleman-Belloso v. Bondi, 128 F.4th 1031, 1 Montes Olea argues that the BIA erred by stating that the IJ found Montes Olea to not be a credible witness. However, any error would be harmless given that the BIA assumed Montes Olea was credible. See Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1159 (9th Cir. 2019) (“And, crucially, although the IJ made a questionable adverse credibility finding against Arrey, any prejudice from that was cured by the [BIA’s] subsequent decision assuming the credibility of her testimony in full.”). 2 21-99 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2024), as amended (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Montes Olea challenges the agency’s decision for only one of her proposed PSGs: “Mexican women viewed as property.” Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Montes Olea failed to demonstrate that the PSG of “Mexican women viewed as property” is perceived as socially distinct. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2021). Much like the petitioner in Villegas Sanchez, Montes Olea’s principal argument is that “her proposed groups are socially distinct because violence against women, including domestic violence, is a widespread problem in [Mexican] society.” Id. at 1181. However, as was the case in Villegas Sanchez, the documentary evidence cited by Montes Olea “does not address how [Mexican] society perceives [‘Mexican women viewed as property’] distinctly.” Id. 2. Montes Olea asserts that “neither the BIA nor the IJ considered evidence in the record establishing [the] Mexican government’s failure to protect women from persecution.” But Montes Olea fails to reference any specific evidence that the agency overlooked. In any event, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the Mexican government was not unable or unwilling to protect her given that, after the filing of a police report, the police arrested Montes Olea’s abusive partner and brought him before a judge. The judge 3 21-99 provided Montes Olea an opportunity to speak without the officers or her partner present, and offered her a police escort to her home and then to the United States- Mexico border. See Diaz v. Bondi, 129 F.4th 546, 556 (9th Cir. 2025), as amended (recognizing that the relevant inquiry for whether a government is unable or unwilling to control a private persecutor is “whether the government both could and would provide protection”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in the original). 3. Because Montes Olea failed to meet the lower standard for asylum eligibility, she is also unable to satisfy the heavier burden of demonstrating eligibility for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez, 990 F.3d at 1183 (“A failure to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to establish eligibility for asylum therefore necessarily results in a failure to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation. Because Villegas Sanchez is ineligible for asylum, as her proposed particular social groups are not socially distinct, she is ineligible for withholding of removal.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 4. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Montes Olea’s application for protection under the CAT. “Nothing in the record would compel a reasonable adjudicator to conclude that the Mexican government would acquiesce in [Montes Olea’s] torture,” B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 845 (9th Cir. 2022), in view of the police and judicial response to the police report. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 4 21-99 828 F.3d 829, 836-37 (9th Cir. 2016), as amended. PETITION DENIED.2 2 The unopposed stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues. The motion for stay of removal (Dkt. # 3) is otherwise denied. 5 21-99 FILED JUL 20 2026 Montes Olea v. Blanche, No. 21-99 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK VANDYKE, Circuit Judge, concurring: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS For the reasons stated in Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi, 167 F.4th 1069, 1073–74, 1077–78 (9th Cir. 2026) (VanDyke, J., dissenting from the grant of rehearing en banc)—and because Petitioner showed no likelihood of success on the merits—I would not leave the temporary stay of removal in place.
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.