9th Circuit denied a Mexican woman's petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection…
Chavez Chavez 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 denied a Mexican woman's petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, finding she did not show a personal link between her feared harm and her religion or gender.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of Julia Chavez Chavez's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court found that she had not demonstrated the required connection between her feared harm in Mexico and her worship of Santa Muerte or her identity as a Mexican woman. It also found that general country conditions evidence about violence in Mexico was not enough to show she personally faced a likelihood of torture.
Who it affects
- Her two minor children
- Similar countries must show a personal
- A protected ground
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 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Unpublished opinion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 13, 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Jul 13, 2026 · Unpublished opinion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
Julia Chavez Chavez, along with her two minor children, petitioned the Ninth Circuit to review a Board of Immigration Appeals decision upholding an immigration judge's denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. All three applications were based on the same factual claims. On the asylum and withholding claims tied to religion, the court found that the record did not compel a finding that Chavez Chavez faced harm because of her worship of Santa Muerte. She had not presented evidence that Santa Muerte worshipers had been harmed on account of their religion. Her own sister, who lives in Mexico and also worships Santa Muerte, had not suffered harm. Although her home was broken into and her altar was damaged after she left for the United States, she testified she did not know who did it or why, leaving no proven connection to her religion. On the asylum and withholding claims based on membership in a particular social group defined as 'Mexican women,' the court found that general evidence of widespread gender-based violence in Mexico was not enough. A petitioner must show an individualized risk of persecution, not just that violence is common in a country. On the Convention Against Torture claim, the court reiterated that generalized evidence of violence and organized crime in Mexico, without more, is legally insufficient to establish that it is more likely than not that a specific person would be tortured upon removal. Because Chavez Chavez relied entirely on such general country conditions evidence, this claim also failed. The court unanimously denied the petition and also lifted a temporary stay of removal that had been in place during the proceedings. There was no dissent noted in the opinion.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIA CHAVEZ CHAVEZ; J. E. B. C.; C. No. 25-6799 Y. B. C., Agency Nos. A249-334-725 Petitioners, A249-334-726 A249-334-727 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 7, 2026** Portland, Oregon Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Julia Chavez Chavez (“Petitioner”) and her two minor children seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of * 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). removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. “We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal determinations de novo.” Ruiz v. Bondi, 163 F.4th 586, 592 (9th Cir. 2025). “This court’s review of an agency order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief ‘is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s decision is expressly adopted.’” Kalulu v. Bondi, 128 F.4th 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2024), as amended (Feb. 13, 2025) (quoting Singh v. Garland, 57 F.4th 643, 651 (9th Cir. 2022)). 1. The record does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner has shown, for her asylum and withholding claims, the requisite nexus between her fear of future harm in Mexico and her worship of Santa Muerte. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021) (asylum); Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019) (withholding). Petitioner has not presented evidence that worshipers of Santa Muerte have been harmed on account of their religion. She testified that her sister, who lives in Mexico and worships Santa Muerte, has not suffered harm. Although Petitioner’s home was broken into and her altar to Santa 1 The minor petitioners, J. E. B. C. and C. Y. B. C., each filed their own applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection on the same factual basis as their mother. This disposition refers to their mother, the lead petitioner, as “Petitioner,” but our conclusions apply equally to the minor petitioners’ applications. 2 25-6799 Muerte was damaged after she left for the United States, she testified that she did not know who broke into her home or why. 2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioner has not shown a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group composed of “Mexican women.” Petitioner’s general country conditions evidence, showing that gender-based violence is widespread in Mexico, does not compel the conclusion that she faces an individualized risk of persecution based on her gender. See Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 647 (9th Cir. 2021). 3. The record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would experience torture if removed to Mexico. Petitioner bases her claim for CAT protection entirely on country conditions evidence concerning gender-based violence and organized crime in Mexico. But “[g]eneralized evidence of violence and crime is insufficient to establish a likelihood of torture” for the purpose of establishing eligibility for CAT protection. Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (citing Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)). PETITION DENIED.2 2 Petitioner’s opposed motion to stay removal (Dkt. # 3) is denied. The temporary stay of removal entered pursuant to General Order 6.4(c) is lifted, effective immediately. 3 25-6799
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.