9th Circuit denies asylum petition for Honduran family, ruling gang threats and extortion were motivated…
Hernandez 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 asylum petition for Honduran family, ruling gang threats and extortion were motivated by recruitment and money, not their family membership.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit denied a petition by a Honduran mother and her two children who sought asylum after experiencing threats and extortion from gang members in Honduras. The court upheld the immigration agency's finding that the gang targeted the family to recruit the daughter and for financial reasons, not because of their membership in the Hernandez family as a protected social group. Because the petitioners could not show the required legal connection between the harm they suffered and a protected ground, their asylum and withholding of removal claims failed.
Who it affects
- Her two children
- Whose asylum
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Unpublished opinion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Jul 14, 2026 · Unpublished opinion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
Yolanda Hernandez and her two children, all citizens of Honduras, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture after facing mistreatment by gang members. They argued they were persecuted because of their membership in a particular social group, specifically the Hernandez family. An Immigration Judge denied their applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. They then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review. The central legal question was whether there was a 'nexus,' meaning a causal connection, between the harm the family suffered and their membership in a recognized protected social group. Under immigration law, asylum seekers must show that persecution was motivated at least in part by a protected characteristic such as family membership. The court reviewed legal questions without deference to the agency but reviewed factual findings under the deferential 'substantial evidence' standard, meaning factual findings stand unless any reasonable decision-maker would be compelled to reach a different conclusion. The court found that substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that the gang's actions were driven by a desire to recruit the daughter and to extort money, not by any animus toward the family as a family. The court noted that the desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or gang recruitment does not establish a nexus to a protected ground. Because the family could not satisfy this nexus requirement, the court did not need to address any other legal issues and denied the petition. The court also noted that the petitioners had not challenged the denial of their Torture Convention claims in their opening brief, so that issue was considered forfeited and was not reviewed. The opinion was issued as a non-precedential memorandum, meaning it does not create binding legal precedent beyond the parties involved, though it reflects how the court applies existing rules. No dissent was noted, as the panel reached a unanimous conclusion.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS YOLANDA HERNANDEZ; ROSMERY No. 25-151 JULIETH ANDRADE-HERNANDEZ; EMERSON YANCARLOS AMAYA- Agency Nos. A203-772-969 HERNANDEZ, A203-772-970 A203-772-971 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 10, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: BYBEE, COLLINS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Yolanda Hernandez and her two children,1 natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 1 Hernandez and her now-adult children filed separate applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but all three applications are based on the same allegations of mistreatment. Hernandez’s children, who were under 21 years of age at the time Hernandez submitted her application, are also riders on their mother’s asylum application. (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal of an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“Torture Convention”).2 We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review legal questions de novo and the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). Under the latter standard, “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the petition. To qualify for asylum or withholding of removal, an alien must show a “nexus” between past or feared future harm and “a protected ground,” Umana- Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 551 (9th Cir. 2023), and “membership in a particular social group” is one such protected ground, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners failed to establish a nexus between any past or feared future harm and their proposed social group, members of the Hernandez Family. The agency reasonably concluded that the instances of mistreatment of Hernandez and her daughter at the hands of gang members were “all examples of generalized 2 Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of Torture Convention relief in their opening brief and have accordingly forfeited that issue. See Martinez- Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir. 1996). 2 criminal activities either motivated to expand the gang’s membership of the organization or for financial purposes.” “An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that extortion and threats against a relative solely as part of an effort to coerce a targeted person “d[id] not compel [a] finding that the persecutor threatened the target because of . . . family relation”). Based on the evidence in the record, the agency reasonably concluded that the gang sought to recruit Hernandez’s daughter and that it extorted and threatened Hernandez in furtherance of that motivation, and not because Hernandez and her daughter were specifically members of the Hernandez family. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. Because Petitioners’ failure to establish the requisite nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of their asylum and withholding claims, we need not address any other issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). PETITION DENIED. 3
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.