9th Circuit denies asylum petition from Honduran man, ruling one anonymous death threat and an…
Coseme Moradel-Calix 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 denies asylum petition from Honduran man, ruling one anonymous death threat and an armed confrontation without violence did not prove persecution on a protected ground.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit denied Coseme Moradel-Calix's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that dismissed his asylum claim. The court found that one anonymous death threat by text message and a confrontation with an unknown armed individual, neither of which involved actual physical violence, did not establish past persecution. The court also found he failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution tied to a protected ground such as family membership or membership in a particular social group.
Who it affects
- His immigration status. More broadly
- Family membership
- Or reporting crimes to police
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 15, 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Unpublished opinion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 15, 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Jul 15, 2026 · Unpublished opinion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
Coseme Damian Moradel-Calix, a native and citizen of Honduras, applied for asylum in the United States. An Immigration Judge denied his application, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal, and he then asked the Ninth Circuit to review that decision. The central question was whether he had demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution connected to a legally recognized protected ground, which is required to qualify for asylum. The court reviewed the agency's legal conclusions without deference (called de novo review) and reviewed its factual findings under the more deferential substantial evidence standard, meaning the court would only overturn factual findings if any reasonable adjudicator would have been compelled to reach the opposite conclusion. On the question of past persecution, the court found substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that Moradel-Calix had not been persecuted. He received one anonymous, nonspecific death threat by text and was confronted on a separate occasion by an unknown armed person, but neither incident involved physical violence. The court cited prior case law establishing that threats by phone or in person, without accompanying violence, do not compel a finding of past persecution. On the question of future persecution, the court examined two proposed protected grounds. First, regarding family membership, the court noted that the armed individuals never mentioned his brother or any other family member, he did not know who they were, and the record did not compel the conclusion that threats and extortion directed at his relatives were motivated by family ties. Second, regarding his proposed social group of people who report crimes to law enforcement, the court cited prior precedent holding that this does not constitute a legally recognized particular social group. Because he could not establish a connection, called a nexus, between any harm and a protected ground, his asylum claim failed. The court also noted that Moradel-Calix did not address the denial of withholding of removal in his opening brief, so that argument was considered waived. The petition was denied. No dissent is noted in the opinion.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT COSEME DAMIAN MORADEL-CALIX, No. 20-72048 AKA Cosme Damian Moradel-Calix, Agency No. A076-257-030 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 09, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, District Judge.*** Petitioner Coseme Damian Moradel-Calix (Moradel-Calix), a native and * 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). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of his application for asylum.1 We deny the petition. We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023), as amended. Under substantial evidence review, “[w]e reverse the BIA only where any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions. . . .” Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). To establish eligibility for asylum relief, Moradel-Calix was required to “demonstrate a likelihood of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Moradel-Calix failed to establish past persecution. Moradel-Calix received one anonymous death 1 Moradel-Felix failed to address the denial of withholding of removal in his Opening Brief. Therefore, this argument has been waived. See Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020). 2 25-3804 threat via text message, and on a separate occasion was confronted by an unknown armed individual. However, the threat was nonspecific and was not accompanied by violence. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[T]hreats by phone and in person, without acts of violence, [do] not compel finding past persecution.”) (citation omitted). Similarly, Moradel-Calix was not physically harmed by the unknown armed individual who confronted him. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that the evidence did not “compel[] the conclusion that Duran-Rodriguez suffered past persecution” as the “men who approached him . . . took no actions of violence against Duran-Rodriguez, his family or property beyond the threats.”) (emphasis in the original) Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Moradel-Calix failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1065. To the extent Moradel-Calix asserts persecution based on his family membership, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that he failed to establish a reasonable possibility that he would be persecuted on account of that protected ground. See Rodriguez- Zuniga, 69 F.4th at 1019. The armed individuals who approached Moradel-Calix did not reference his brother or any other family member, he did not know the individuals, and the record does not compel the conclusion that the threats and 3 25-3804 extortion demand received by his relatives were motivated by family membership. Likewise, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Moradel-Calix failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of his proposed particular social group of “individuals who report crimes to law enforcement authorities.” See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2020) (noting that persons who report crimes to the police do not constitute a cognizable social group). Thus, Moradel-Calix failed to establish a nexus between any past or future harm in Honduras and a protected ground. See Rodriguez-Zuniga, 69 F.4th at 1016. Because Moradel-Calix has not established a reasonable possibility that he will be persecuted in Honduras on account of a protected ground, he cannot satisfy his burden to establish eligibility for asylum relief. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that “[t]he lack of a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of his asylum” claim.) (citation omitted). PETITION DENIED. 4 25-3804
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.