Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAURICIO ALEXANDER LEZAMA No. 25-6094 ARCE I; MARY LUZ TORREZ I; G. A. L. Agency Nos. T. I; L. S. L. T. I; K. S. L. T. I, A220-598-903 A216-637-687 Petitioners, A216-637-688 A216-637-689 v. A216-637-690 TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 28, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, R. NELSON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges . Petitioners, a family of five natives and citizens of Nicaragua, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their applications for asylum, * 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). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Reviewing the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination, affirmed by the BIA, that Petitioners failed to show either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, thus making them ineligible for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 645–46 (9th Cir. 2021). As Petitioners had conceded to the IJ that they had not faced previous persecution, the BIA properly focused its analysis on Petitioners’ arguments supporting their claim that they have a well-founded fear of future persecution. As to Petitioners’ alleged claims of a fear of future persecution, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s findings that Petitioners (1) were not previously physically harmed, (2) faced the mere prospect of a lost opportunity to buy land, (3) provided insufficient evidence that the Nicaraguan government remained interested in targeting them, and (4) had several family members who remained unharmed in the country. These adopted findings constitute substantial evidence that Petitioners do not possess a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2021) (“We have repeatedly denied petitions for review when, among other factors, the record did not demonstrate significant physical 2 25-6094 harm.”); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to demonstrate an objective well-founded fear of persecution because he did not present any evidence of further issues with the government); Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094–95 (9th Cir. 2010) (no objective fear of future persecution when similarly situated family members remained unharmed in home country). Though Petitioners argue that they are likely to suffer economic deprivation upon their return to Nicaragua, the BIA permissibly found that evidence relating to the loss of the land sale fell short of persecution when assessed together with the record. See Hussain, 985 F.3d at 647 (“Mere economic disadvantage alone does not rise to the level of persecution.” (cleaned up)). Because Petitioners do not meet the standard for asylum, the BIA was correct in finding that they do not meet the more stringent standards of clear probability for withholding of removal and likelihood of future torture under CAT. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004); Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1066–67. PETITION DENIED.1 1 Petitioners’ motion to stay removal, Dkt. No. 8, is denied. The temporary stay of removal is lifted. 3 25-6094