9th Circuit denies petition from Haitian asylum seekers, finding credibility problems in their testimony fatally…
Cenorbe 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 Haitian asylum seekers, finding credibility problems in their testimony fatally undermined their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and torture protection.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit upheld the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection for a Haitian woman, her partner, and their minor child. The court found that substantial evidence supported the immigration agency's conclusion that both adult petitioners were not credible witnesses, based on significant inconsistencies in their testimony about key dates and events. Because no credible testimony supported their claims, and because they provided only generalized country conditions evidence rather than individualized proof of a torture risk, all claims failed.
Who it affects
- Magalie Cenorbe
- Wadner Raphael
- Their child
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 14, 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Unpublished opinion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 14, 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Jul 14, 2026 · Unpublished opinion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
This case involved a Haitian woman named Magalie Cenorbe, her partner Wadner Raphael, and their minor child, who sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on harm they experienced or feared in Haiti. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had dismissed their appeal of an immigration judge's denial of all relief, and they then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review. The central question was whether the immigration agency had enough evidence to find the petitioners not credible, and whether the remaining record still required granting them protection. The court reviewed the agency's factual findings, including credibility determinations, under a 'substantial evidence' standard, meaning the court would uphold those findings unless the evidence compelled a different conclusion. On credibility, the court found serious problems with both adult petitioners. Cenorbe gave contradictory accounts of when she met her abusive ex-partner and when she left Haiti, and a Department of Homeland Security interview record from 2016 directly contradicted parts of her courtroom testimony. She also omitted her 2016 entry into the United States from her asylum application entirely. The immigration judge also noted that she was unresponsive to questions and paused noticeably when confronted with conflicting evidence. Raphael similarly gave inconsistent accounts of the dates of attacks on his family, describing them at different points as occurring in September or November of 2012 and on differing sets of days. When confronted with a police report listing November rather than September, he paused at length and said he was unsure of the month. The court held that these inconsistencies about crucial dates, combined with demeanor observations, constituted substantial evidence supporting the adverse credibility findings. Because the asylum and withholding claims depended on credible testimony, those claims failed once credibility was rejected. On the CAT claim, the court noted that even setting aside credibility problems, the petitioners submitted only generalized evidence of violence and criminality in Haiti, with no individualized evidence that they personally would be tortured with the acquiescence of the Haitian government. That was insufficient to compel CAT relief. The minor child's claims were tied to her mother's and were not addressed separately. The panel was unanimous and there was no dissent. The court noted this memorandum is not precedent except as allowed by Ninth Circuit rules.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAGALIE CENORBE; WADNER No. 25-3994 RAPHAEL; W. R.-C., Agency Nos. A209-158-068 Petitioners, A220-579-985 A220-562-779 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, District Judge.*** Magalie Cenorbe (Cenorbe) and her partner Wadner Raphael (Raphael), * 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. natives and citizens of Haiti and Chile,1 petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).2 We deny the petition. “We review the agency’s factual findings, including credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. . . .” Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291, 1296 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). “Where, as here, the BIA cites Burbano3 and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. . . .” Smith v. Garland, 103 F.4th 663, 666 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determinations. Cenorbe initially testified that she met her abusive ex-partner in 2015. Cenorbe testified that she left him permanently on December 20, 2016. However, when confronted with a Record of Sworn Statement documenting a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officer’s interview with Cenorbe 1 Petitioners challenge the denial of relief solely as to Haiti. 2 Each of the petitioners filed separate petitions. Nevertheless, both Raphael and their minor child, W.R.-C., also have derivative claims for asylum as Cenorbe’s beneficiaries. 3 Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994). 2 25-3994 following her October 2016 entry into the United States, Cenorbe drastically changed her testimony. Cenorbe explained that she first lived with her ex-partner in 2003, had a child with him, and fled Haiti later that year because she didn’t want to be with him. She next encountered her ex-partner when she was deported to Haiti following her unlawful entry into the United States in 2016. Cenorbe testified that she told the DHS officer in 2016 that she did not fear return to Haiti because the severe incidents of abuse underlying her asylum claim occurred following her return to Haiti in December 2016 and leaving again in February 2017. The agency may “afford substantial weight to inconsistencies that bear directly on [a petitioner’s] claim of persecution,” including inconsistencies about a “crucial date.” Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1093 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted). Against this significant inconsistency, the agency was not compelled to find Cenorbe credible, especially when considering other indicia of unreliability the IJ identified, such as being unresponsive to questions, engaging in long pauses when faced with conflicting evidence, and the omission from her asylum application of her 2016 entry into the United States. See id. (concluding that an adverse credibility determination was supported by demeanor findings); see also Uc Encarnacion v. Bondi, 156 F.4th 927, 938 (9th Cir. 2025) (“We regularly credit 3 25-3994 demeanor findings based on hesitation and lengthy pauses during key questioning. . . .”) (citations omitted). Raphael similarly struggled with the “crucial date” of the incident underlying his separate asylum claim. Rodriguez-Ramirez, 11 F.4th at 1093. He described an incident of a man who attacked his family at their house on the 5th, 7th, 10th, and 12th of September 2012.4 But during cross-examination, Raphael testified that there were attacks each day from the 5th through the 10th. And when confronted with the police report stating that the attacks occurred in November rather than September of 2012, Raphael—after a long pause—explained, “when it comes, like, to the month -- so, I do not know. So -- but it did happen in 2012.” These inconsistencies around a crucial date, combined with Raphael’s long pause when confronted with conflicting documents, constituted substantial evidence to support the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See id. The adverse credibility determinations are fatal to Cenorbe’s and Raphael’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2020).5 2. Absent credible testimony, the remaining record does not compel a grant 4 At one point Raphael also mentioned November 5th and “the 12th.” 5 Because the minor petitioner’s claims are based on the same facts as her mother’s claims, we do not address those claims separately. 4 25-3994 of CAT relief. Cenorbe and Raphael submitted country conditions evidence describing generalized violence and criminality in Haiti. However, they have “presented no actual, individualized evidence that [they] would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the [Haitian] government if [they] were removed to [Haiti].” Singh v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2025). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Cenorbe and Raphael were not entitled to CAT relief. See id. PETITION DENIED.6 6 The stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues. The motion for stay of removal (Dkt. # 2) is otherwise denied. 5 25-3994
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.