Franco-Prada v. Blanche

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELIOS ARTURO FRANCO-PRADA; No. 25-1626 ANNGIE NATALY MARIN- Agency Nos. RODRIGUEZ; J. M. F.-M.; K. M. F.-M., A241-687-634 A241-687-635 Petitioners,

A241-687-636 A241-687-637 v.

TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 6, 2026 ** Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, KOH, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Elios Arturo Franco-Prada (“Lead Petitioner”), his partner, and their two minor children are natives and citizens of Colombia. They petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. their appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) (collectively, the “Agency”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and “does not express any disagreement with the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s.” Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition.

1. To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, Petitioners must show that the Colombian government is “unable or unwilling” to protect them from the private actors they fear will harm them. Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020). The Agency found that Petitioners failed to show that the unknown members of “Front 53,” the extortionist group they fear, are government officials or are persons the government is unable or unwilling to control. Petitioners assert that the Agency “ignored” evidence “regarding the insidious nature of ‘Front 53’ and the Government’s inability to control [that] group.” But Petitioners do not point to any evidence that the Agency allegedly ignored. Further, the country conditions evidence, which contains no mention of Front 53, suggests that the Colombian government actively combats extortionist groups. Substantial evidence thus supports the Agency’s denial of Petitioners’ claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. 2. Substantial evidence also supports the Agency’s denial of Petitioners’ claims for CAT protection. See Uc Encarnacion v. Bondi, 156 F.4th 927, 935 (9th Cir. 2025) (stating that we review for substantial evidence the denial of CAT relief). The record does not compel the conclusion that Petitioners demonstrated a likelihood of torture by, or with the acquiescence of, Colombian officials if Petitioners are returned to Colombia. See Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Generalized evidence of violence and crime is insufficient to establish a likelihood of torture.”); Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 770 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that “a general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime” does not show acquiescence (citation omitted)).

PETITION DENIED. 2