Palomo: An Omitted Relocation Issue Blocked Withholding Review

In Palomo v. Blanche, No. 18-72603, the Ninth Circuit denied review of a withholding-of-removal and Convention Against Torture decision. An internal-relocation issue had not been raised to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the court treated that omission as dispositive of the withholding challenge. It separately upheld the agency’s CAT determination because the evidence did not compel a finding beyond speculative fear.

The October 21, 2026 memorandum is an unpublished disposition, not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Its three pages illustrate two different obstacles to review: an issue omitted from the administrative appeal and an evidentiary challenge that failed under substantial-evidence review.

The petition followed the BIA’s dismissal of an appeal

Luis Palomo sought review after the BIA dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of withholding and CAT protection. The memorandum identifies Peru as the country relevant to internal relocation. It gives only a limited account of the underlying history; the discussion centers on the preserved issues and the evidence relevant to CAT. Official memorandum, pages 1–3.

The court identified substantial evidence as the standard for agency factual findings and de novo review for legal questions. Under substantial-evidence review, a competing interpretation of the facts is not enough: The record must compel a different conclusion. That distinction mattered to the CAT ruling, while exhaustion controlled the relocation issue. Page 2.

The relocation issue had to be presented to the BIA

The panel concluded that Palomo had not raised the internal-relocation issue in his BIA appeal. It quoted Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023), for the requirement that a nonconstitutional legal claim presented to the court first be raised in administrative proceedings. Citing Santana-Gonzalez v. Bondi, 172 F.4th 736, 742 (9th Cir. 2026), the panel described § 1252(d)(1) as a mandatory claim-processing rule when the government raises it, rather than a jurisdictional bar. Page 2.

The precise omission mattered because internal relocation provided a dispositive ground for denying withholding. The panel cited the rule that safe and reasonable relocation defeats asylum eligibility and the relationship between asylum’s more lenient standard and withholding’s more demanding standard. With the relocation issue unavailable for review, the panel found no need to address the remaining withholding arguments, citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). Pages 2–3.

That is the actual issue the court left unreached: the remainder of Palomo’s withholding arguments, because relocation was dispositive. The opinion did not evaluate each of those arguments and reject it on the merits. Nor does the brief memorandum supply facts sufficient to reconstruct arguments the administrative appeal omitted.

The CAT claim received a separate evidentiary analysis

Palomo testified that unidentified groups might target him because they had targeted his father. He also said he did not know the motives of those who harassed his father. The agency considered the resulting fear speculative. Page 3.

The panel held that the record did not compel a contrary finding. Its reasoning linked the weakness to the evidence described: unidentified groups, an uncertain motive and an asserted possibility of future targeting. The evidentiary question was what this record showed about the applicant’s own risk. Page 3.

Relocation and CAT should not disappear into a general appeal argument

For someone preparing an administrative appeal, the first task is to identify every ground the immigration judge used. A brief addressing persecution or motive can leave a separate relocation finding unanswered. Likewise, discussing withholding does not necessarily explain the evidence supporting CAT protection.

The guide to addressing an internal-relocation finding in a BIA appeal focuses on comparing the decision with the existing record and the appeal brief. Our relocation-evidence guide addresses the separate task of developing evidence about safety and reasonableness in a particular place.

The court denied the petition. Page 3. Reviewing a similar case requires the immigration judge’s decision, BIA filings and decision, and the relevant hearing record. The published website summary cannot establish what another applicant preserved or what additional procedural steps remain available.