9th Circuit denies asylum petition from Salvadoran man, ruling gang threats were about recruitment, not…
Brandon Cuellar Cabrera 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 Salvadoran man, ruling gang threats were about recruitment, not his family ties, so no protected ground was established.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit denied Brandon Cuellar Cabrera's petition for review of an immigration ruling that rejected his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court found that Cuellar Cabrera failed to argue most of his claims in his opening brief, forfeiting them. On his remaining asylum claim, the court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that Barrio 18 gang members threatened him because they wanted to recruit him, not because of his relationship to his brothers who had resisted gang membership.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Brandon Cuellar Cabrera, whose temporary stay of removal will end when the court's mandate issues. More broadly, it reinforces the legal standard applied to asylum seekers from Central America who argue that gang threats were driven by family ties rather than general recruitment efforts.
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Unpublished opinion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Jul 13, 2026 · Unpublished opinion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
Brandon Cuellar Cabrera, a citizen of El Salvador, sought asylum in the United States, arguing he faced persecution based on his membership in a particular social group. He proposed two such groups: Salvadoran youths who resist gang recruitment, and immediate family members of Salvadoran youth who resist gang recruitment. The immigration judge denied all relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Ninth Circuit first addressed several of Cuellar Cabrera's potential claims, finding that his opening brief made no meaningful argument challenging the agency's rulings on his first proposed social group, his eligibility for withholding of removal, or his eligibility for Convention Against Torture protection. Under established court rules, failing to argue a point in an opening brief counts as forfeiture, meaning the court would not consider those claims at all. The court also noted that his original appellate attorney had since been disbarred for repeated failures to follow court rules. On the one remaining claim, the court reviewed whether Cuellar Cabrera faced harm because of his family ties to brothers who had resisted gang recruitment. He argued that Barrio 18 gang members threatened him specifically because of those family connections. However, the BIA concluded that the gang threatened him because they were trying to recruit him personally, not because of who his brothers were. The court reviewed this factual finding under the deferential 'substantial evidence' standard, which means the agency's conclusion stands unless no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it. The court found the record supported the agency's view. Testimony from Cuellar Cabrera's own family indicated that Barrio 18 recruited and threatened virtually everyone in the area. The court reasoned that the gang's awareness that Cuellar Cabrera and his brothers were related was simply a tool the gang used to identify and monitor potential recruits, not evidence that family membership was a central reason for the threats. Because he could not show the required connection between the harm he feared and a legally protected characteristic, he did not qualify for asylum. The petition was denied, with no dissent noted.
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 BRANDON ISAIAS CUELLAR No. 19-73173 CABRERA, Agency No. A209-398-594 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 26, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: FORREST, DESAI, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges. Brandon Isaias Cuellar Cabrera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under * 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 Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition. 1. Forfeiture. Failure to “make any argument” or “meaningfully challenge” a determination in an opening brief constitutes forfeiture. See Santana- Gonzalez v. Bondi, 172 F.4th 736, 741–42 (9th Cir. 2026). Here, Cuellar Cabrera’s Opening Brief did not make any argument challenging the BIA’s determinations that his proposed particular social group (PSG) of “Salvadoran youths who are resistant to gang recruitment and membership” is not legally cognizable; that he is ineligible for withholding of removal; or that he is ineligible for CAT protection.1 Therefore, Cuellar Cabrera has forfeited his ability to seek relief on these bases. 2. Asylum. Cuellar Cabrera seeks asylum based on a second PSG: “immediate family members of Salvadoran youth who are resistant to gang recruitment.” A petitioner seeking asylum based on his membership in a PSG “must show a nexus between h[is] past harms or feared future harm and h[is] statutorily protected characteristics.” See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023). That is, he must demonstrate that his membership in the PSG is “‘one central reason’ for either h[is] past harms or h[is] feared future harms.” Id. 1 We note the poorly handled representation and poor quality of briefing in this case by Cuellar Cabrera’s original appellate counsel, Tori S. Bryant. Bryant was disbarred for “repeated failures to comply with the court’s rules and orders, and for conduct unbecoming [of] member[s] of the court’s bar.” Cabrera de Cuellar v. Bondi, No. 19-73018, 2025 WL 2924544, at *2 n.2 (9th Cir. Oct. 15, 2025) (quoting Matter of Tori S. Bryant, No. SB-22-0062-SP (Ariz. Apr. 6, 2023)); see In re Tori Bryant, No. 19-80173, Dkt. 10 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2025). 2 19-73173 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ and adds its own reasoning, “we review both the BIA’s decision and the portions of the IJ’s decision adopted by the BIA.” Diaz v. Bondi, 129 F.4th 546, 552 (9th Cir. 2025). We review the agency’s factual findings, including a persecutor’s motive, for substantial evidence. Rodriguez-Zuniga, 69 F.4th at 1018; see also Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. 537, 539 (2026). Under that standard, the agency’s findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Edgar G.C. v. Garland, 136 F.4th 832, 842 (9th Cir. 2025) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Cuellar Cabrera asserts that he was threatened by Barrio 18 gang members exclusively because of his relationship with his two brothers, who had both rebuffed the gang’s recruitment efforts. But the BIA concluded that Cuellar Cabrera was threatened because the gang was trying to recruit him, not because of his connection to his brothers. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. Cuellar Cabrera’s family testified that Barrio 18 gang members controlled the area and recruited and threatened “everybody.” See Santana-Gonzalez, 172 F.4th at 743 (reasoning that petitioner could not establish the requisite nexus between threats and any protected ground where he “conceded that [members of a vigilante group] were probably pressuring ‘everyone’ to join”). Substantial evidence supports that the Barrio 18 gang members’ identifying Cuellar Cabrera, Johalmo, and Alfredo as brothers was 3 19-73173 “simply an instrumentality for the [gang members] to accomplish [their] goals” of controlling the area, monitoring potential recruits, and threatening local young men to join the gang once they came of age. Rodriguez-Zuniga, 69 F.4th at 1019 n.2. As such, Cuellar Cabrera cannot demonstrate the necessary nexus between his past or feared future harms and his proposed PSG, rendering him ineligible for asylum.2 See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016). PETITION DENIED. 2 Cuellar Cabrera’s temporary stay of removal will dissolve when the mandate issues. (Dkt. 13.) 4 19-73173
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.