U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2026

Gomez-Lopez v. Blanche

Gomez-Lopez v. Blanche
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided July 15, 2026
Gomez-Lopez v. Blanche

Opinion

Case: 25-60643 Document: 61-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-60643 July 15, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Pedro Luis Gomez-Lopez, Petitioner, versus Todd Wallace Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A205 476 945 ______________________________ Before Haynes, Graves, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Pedro Luis Gomez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Case: 25-60643 Document: 61-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2026

No. 25-60643

First, Gomez-Lopez argues the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s finding that he had not established a nexus between the harm he suffered and his political opinion and activity as a whistleblower and anti-corruption activist.

However, the record does not compel a contrary conclusion, and this nexus determination is dispositive of his asylum and withholding claims. See Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 150 (5th Cir. 2019); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).

Second, Gomez-Lopez argues the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, citing the country conditions evidence he submitted to the agency and his own credible testimony regarding persecution by police officers. Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s factual findings, Gomez-Lopez has not shown any reversable error in the denial of CAT protection. See Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 911 (5th Cir. 2019); Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344.

The petition for review is DENIED.

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.