Albarran-Sotelo v. Blanche: A Generalized Safe Area Did Not Resolve Internal Relocation

Introduction and Case Summary

In Albarran-Sotelo v. Blanche, No. 25-5904 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2026), a nonprecedential memorandum disposition, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of asylum and humanitarian asylum. The court granted the petition in part, denied it in part, and remanded the matter for further proceedings concerning the petitioner's asylum eligibility.

The central issue before the panel was whether substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that the government met its burden of proving safe and reasonable internal relocation. Because the petitioner had established past persecution, the government was required to prove that relocation to a safe and reasonable area was feasible. The court held that the agency's reliance on a broad, multi-state exclusion proposed by the government was internally inconsistent with its own factual findings regarding cartel dominance across Mexico. Albarran-Sotelo, slip op. at 2.

Factual and Procedural Posture

Luis Fernando Albarran-Sotelo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a BIA decision that affirmed and incorporated specific factual findings made by an IJ while adding its own reasoning. Albarran-Sotelo had applied for asylum and humanitarian asylum after suffering past persecution in Mexico. Specifically, he was kidnapped by the Jalisco Cartel in the state of Guerrero and held for ransom.

In administrative proceedings, the agency acknowledged that Albarran-Sotelo had established past persecution inflicted by the Jalisco Cartel. Consequently, the legal burden shifted to the government to establish that internal relocation was both safe and reasonable under all the circumstances. To satisfy this burden, the government asserted that Albarran-Sotelo could safely and reasonably relocate anywhere in Mexico outside of the state of Guerrero, where his kidnapping occurred.

The IJ and BIA agreed with the government's proposal and concluded that the petitioner could relocate outside Guerrero. Albarran-Sotelo timely petitioned the Ninth Circuit for judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Albarran-Sotelo, slip op. at 2–3.

Legal Issues and Standard of Review

The petition raised two principal questions before the court:

• Whether substantial evidence supported the agency's factual determination that the government satisfied its burden under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii) by showing that the entirety of Mexico outside Guerrero was a safe and reasonable relocation area.
• Whether substantial evidence supported the agency's denial of humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).

The Ninth Circuit reviewed questions of law de novo and factual findings under the substantial evidence standard pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), under which agency factual findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.

Court Reasoning and Analysis

Addressing the asylum claim, the panel noted that establishing past persecution shifted the burden of proof to the government under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). As the panel explained, when the government proposes relocation to a generally defined area—such as anywhere outside a single state—it must make a more comprehensive showing of proof that the entirety of that area is safe, compared to proposing a specific city.

The court identified a fatal internal contradiction in the agency's decision. The agency acknowledged that Albarran-Sotelo was persecuted by the Jalisco Cartel, accepting the premise that safe relocation required an area where the cartel did not conduct operations. However, the agency also made a specific factual finding that the Jalisco Cartel maintained a dominant presence across seven Mexican states. Given that finding, no reasonable adjudicator could conclude that the entirety of Mexico outside Guerrero—a broad region that included seven states dominated by the petitioner's persecutor—was safe for relocation. Because the agency's factual logic was internally inconsistent, substantial evidence did not support its relocation finding.

The Ninth Circuit remanded the asylum claim for the agency to evaluate whether the government could satisfy its burden by proving that relocation to a more specific, defined area would be safe and reasonable. In doing so, the court noted that safety and reasonableness remain distinct legal inquiries under asylum relocation principles. Albarran-Sotelo, slip op. at 3–4.

Regarding humanitarian asylum, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the agency's denial. The court held that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the petitioner's kidnapping and treatment did not reach the level of atrociousness necessary to warrant humanitarian relief under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A). Furthermore, the record did not compel a finding that the petitioner established a reasonable possibility of suffering other serious harm upon removal under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B). Albarran-Sotelo, slip op. at 3–5.

Limitations and Practical Record Consequences

As an unpublished memorandum disposition under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, Albarran-Sotelo v. Blanche is nonprecedential. It does not establish a universal rule that all cartel-based claims shift the relocation burden, nor does it declare that the whole of Mexico is unsafe. Rather, the decision enforces established administrative law principles: agency reasoning must be coherent, internally consistent, and anchored in the factual findings contained in the record.

For immigration practitioners, the disposition underscores the necessity of scrutinizing government relocation proposals. When the government proposes broad, state-level exclusions, practitioners should cross-examine those proposals against record evidence of the persecutor's geographic footprint. A response should identify the proposed destination, the evidence of the persecutor’s presence, and the applicant-specific reasonableness considerations. Preserve those issues in the agency record before seeking judicial review.

For a practical evidence checklist, see asylum internal relocation: A specific place and supporting evidence.