The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for review filed by Ginna Alejandra Gutierrez-Mikan, a Colombian national seeking asylum protection from persecution by guerrilla forces in her home country.
The court issued its decision Jan. 5, 2026, in case No. 24-13788, affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of Gutierrez-Mikan's appeal from an immigration judge's denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Gutierrez-Mikan and her son David E. Benavides Gutierrez are Colombian nationals who entered the United States in July 2021. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently issued them notices to appear at deportation hearings before an immigration judge. At the hearing, Gutierrez-Mikan conceded that she was removable but claimed asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
According to court documents, Gutierrez-Mikan testified that she and her family had been persecuted for approximately 20 years by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as FARC, a group of violent guerrillas operating in Colombia. The persecution began after her family refused to pay extortion money demanded by the FARC guerrillas.
The case proceeded through multiple levels of immigration proceedings before reaching the federal appeals court. Initially, an immigration judge denied Gutierrez-Mikan's applications for protection. She then appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed her appeal. Following that dismissal, she petitioned the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the BIA's decision.
The three-judge panel that decided the case consisted of Circuit Judges Elizabeth Branch, Charles R. Wilson, and Jill A. Pryor. The court issued a per curiam opinion, meaning the decision was unanimous and unsigned by any individual judge.
In their brief order, the appeals court judges stated they had conducted a careful review of the case before denying Gutierrez-Mikan's petition. The court did not provide extensive reasoning in the published portion of the decision, which is typical for immigration cases that do not establish new legal precedent.
The case represents one of many asylum applications filed by Colombian nationals fleeing violence from various armed groups operating in that country. Colombia has experienced decades of internal conflict involving guerrilla groups like FARC, paramilitary organizations, and drug cartels, leading many citizens to seek refuge in other countries including the United States.
Asylum law requires applicants to demonstrate they have suffered persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The persecution must be by the government or groups the government is unwilling or unable to control.
Withholding of removal provides similar protection but has a higher standard of proof, requiring applicants to show it is more likely than not they would face persecution if returned to their home country. Convention Against Torture protection applies when an applicant can demonstrate they would more likely than not be tortured if removed to their home country.
The denial of Gutierrez-Mikan's petition means she and her son remain subject to removal proceedings and deportation to Colombia. However, they may still have other legal avenues available, including potentially filing a petition for rehearing with the Eleventh Circuit or seeking other forms of immigration relief.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over immigration cases arising from Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The court regularly hears asylum cases from individuals fleeing violence and persecution in Latin American countries, particularly those affected by ongoing conflicts and criminal organizations.
Immigration attorneys note that asylum cases involving persecution by non-governmental actors like guerrilla groups can be particularly challenging to win, as applicants must demonstrate the government is unwilling or unable to provide protection. Courts often scrutinize whether asylum seekers exhausted possibilities for internal relocation within their home countries before fleeing.
The case was designated for the court's non-argument calendar, meaning the judges decided it based on written briefs without oral arguments from the parties' attorneys. This procedure is common for immigration cases that present straightforward legal questions or where the outcome is clear based on existing precedent.
The decision adds to the substantial body of case law regarding asylum applications from Colombian nationals and the standards courts apply when evaluating claims of persecution by armed groups operating outside government control. While the published portion of the opinion provides limited detail about the court's reasoning, the case reflects the ongoing challenges faced by individuals seeking protection from violence in Colombia and other conflict-affected regions.