9th Circuit partially sides with a Guatemalan man, ruling his religion was a reason gangs…
Cruz-Lopez 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 partially sides with a Guatemalan man, ruling his religion was a reason gangs targeted him, but upholds denial of torture protection and one asylum claim.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit reviewed a Guatemalan man's appeal after immigration authorities denied him protection from removal. The court ruled in his favor on one key point: the record showed that his evangelical Christian faith was at least one reason gang members targeted him, which is enough under the legal standard for withholding of removal. However, the court upheld the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture, finding no evidence that Guatemalan government officials would knowingly allow such harm to occur.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects immigrants from Guatemala and other countries who seek protection in the United States based on religious persecution by non-government actors like gangs. It also provides guidance to immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals on how to evaluate cases where a persecutor has both financial and religious motivations.
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Unpublished opinion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Jul 14, 2026 · Unpublished opinion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
Santos Guillermo Cruz Lopez, a Guatemalan citizen, was denied asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture by an immigration judge. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld those denials, and he petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review. The court addressed three separate questions about his eligibility for protection. First, regarding his claim that he belongs to a group called 'Guatemalans who cannot pay money to gangs,' the court agreed with the agency that this is not a legally recognized group for immigration protection purposes. A qualifying group must share a characteristic that is immutable, meaning it cannot or should not have to be changed. The court found that an inability to make extortion payments does not qualify as immutable. The petitioner also did not challenge this finding in his brief, so the court treated the argument as forfeited. Second, on the question of whether his religion was connected to the gang's persecution of him, the court ruled against the agency. The petitioner testified that gang members approached him as he was leaving his evangelical church, told him to stop going to church because they did not like religion, demanded monthly payments, and later attacked him with machetes when he missed a payment. The court found that even though the gang was partly motivated by money, the law for withholding of removal only requires that religion be 'a reason' for the targeting, not the only reason. The record, the court said, compelled the conclusion that his faith was indeed a motivating factor, so this part of the case was sent back to the agency for further proceedings. Third, the court upheld the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture. That protection requires showing that any future torture would happen with the knowledge or approval of government officials. The court found the record did not support that conclusion, noting that a government's general failure to investigate or prevent crime is not enough to meet that standard. The court denied the petition in part and granted it in part, remanding the religious nexus question back to the agency, and ordered the government to pay the costs of the appeal.
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 SANTOS GUILLERMO CRUZ LOPEZ, No. 22-1465 Agency No. Petitioner, A208-935-906 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2026** Portland, Oregon Before: GRABER, BERZON, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Santos Guillermo Cruz Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, timely seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order that denied his * 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”).1 “Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision here, we review both decisions.” Montejo-Gonzales v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 851, 854 (9th Cir. 2026) (en banc). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition in part and grant it in part. 1. Petitioner failed to establish that “Guatemalans who cannot pay money to the gangs” is a cognizable particular social group for purposes of withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of review). For a social group to be cognizable, it must be “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Andrade v. Garland, 94 F.4th 904, 910 (9th Cir. 2024) (citations omitted). As the agency explained, a person’s inability to make extortion payments is not an immutable characteristic. See Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 833 (9th Cir. 2022) (“The critical requirement is that the defining characteristic of the group be something that either cannot be changed or should not be required to be changed in order to avoid persecution.” (citation modified)). Petitioner has not challenged on appeal the IJ’s conclusion that his proposed group 1 Petitioner seeks review of the agency’s denials of his applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection but not its denial of his application for asylum. 2 22-1465 is not immutable, so he has forfeited any argument that his proposed social group is cognizable. Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (issues not “specifically and distinctly” argued in the appellant’s opening brief are deemed forfeited). Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that Guatemalan society, in general, recognizes Petitioner’s proposed group as socially distinct. See Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1242 (“Recognition of a group is determined by ‘the perception of the society in question, rather than by the perception of the persecutor.’” (citation omitted)). 2. Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s conclusion that Petitioner failed to establish a nexus between his religion and his past persecution and feared future persecution under the standards governing withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C); Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review); see also Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that the “a reason” nexus standard that applies to withholding of removal claims is “less demanding” than the “one central reason” standard for asylum claims). Petitioner credibly testified that, in 2006, four gang members who were armed with machetes approached him as he was leaving his evangelical church. The gang members knew Petitioner by name and told him that he should “not . . . go to church anymore because they didn’t like religion,” that he had to pay them 300 quetzales each month, and that 3 22-1465 they would kill him if he kept going to church but failed to make the monthly payments. Petitioner made monthly payments and continued going to church, but one month after Petitioner missed one payment, the same four gang members confronted him—again, as he was leaving church—and attacked him with their machetes. Although Petitioner’s assailants were clearly motivated by financial gain, the record compels the conclusion that Petitioner’s religion was also “a reason motivating the [gang] to target [him].” Rodriguez-Zuniga, 69 F.4th at 1019; see id. at 1019 n.2 (“Our caselaw permits someone to establish a nexus when one of the persecutor’s motivations is financial so long as another motivation . . . is based on a victim’s protected characteristic.”); see also Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1021 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]here the petitioner’s [protected ground] is at least ‘a reason’ for the extortion, it is sufficient to meet the nexus requirement for withholding of removal.”). 3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s holding that Petitioner is not eligible for CAT relief. See Uc Encarnacion v. Bondi, 156 F.4th 927, 935 (9th Cir. 2025) (stating standard of review). The record does not compel the conclusion that any torture that Petitioner might experience in Guatemala at the hands of gang members would occur with the acquiescence of a person acting in an official capacity. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1); Uc Encarnacion, 156 F.4th at 941; see also 4 22-1465 Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”). Petition DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART; REMANDED. Respondent shall bear the costs on appeal. 5 22-1465
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.