The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a petition for review from a Honduran family seeking asylum and withholding of removal after fleeing gang violence from MS-13 members in their home country. The court issued the non-precedential opinion on Jan. 6, 2026, in *Minerva Carbajal-Recinos v. Attorney General United States of America* (3d Cir. 2026).
The case involves Minerva Carbajal-Recinos and her nephew Delmer Orlando Carbajal-Duque, both natives of Las Brisas, Honduras. The petitioners challenged a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that denied their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Two minor children, identified in court documents as J.S. C.-C and Y.S.C.-C., were also named as petitioners in the case.
According to court records, the family lived on a farm in Las Brisas purchased by Carbajal-Recinos' brother Isaias, who is also Carbajal-Duque's uncle. The family's troubles began in June 2007 when they moved to the property. By 2008, local gang members affiliated with Mara Salvatrucha, commonly known as MS-13, began targeting the family's farm.
The gang members, led by a high-ranking neighbor of the Carbajal family, systematically pillaged livestock, crops and money from the farm. The gang also pressured male members of the Carbajal family to join their organization. The situation escalated in December 2008 when the gang began extorting Isaias for increasingly large sums of money.
By July 2009, the extortion demands had grown beyond Isaias' ability to pay, according to the court opinion. The family's financial situation became untenable as the gang's demands continued to increase while their farm's productivity declined due to the ongoing theft and harassment.
The case was initially heard by Immigration Judge Mary C. Lee, who issued removal orders against the family members. The petitioners then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld the immigration judge's decision to deny asylum and withholding of removal.
Under U.S. immigration law, asylum seekers must demonstrate that they were persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Withholding of removal requires a showing that it is more likely than not that the applicant would be tortured if returned to their home country.
The Third Circuit's decision was submitted under the court's Local Appellate Rule 34.1(a), which allows for disposition without oral argument in certain cases. The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Cheryl Ann Krause Montgomery-Reeves, Jane Richards Roth, and Thomas L. Ambro.
Circuit Judge Roth authored the opinion for the court. The decision was marked as "not precedential," meaning it does not establish binding legal precedent for future cases but reflects the court's application of existing law to the specific facts presented.
The case represents another example of the challenges faced by Central American families seeking protection in U.S. immigration courts. Gang violence, particularly from organizations like MS-13, has driven thousands of people from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala to seek asylum in the United States.
The Third Circuit has jurisdiction over immigration appeals from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Immigration cases make up a significant portion of the circuit's docket, with many involving asylum seekers from Central America fleeing violence and economic instability.
The Board of Immigration Appeals, which initially denied the family's applications, is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. BIA decisions can be appealed to federal circuit courts, though the courts generally defer to the agency's factual findings unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence.
For the Carbajal-Recinos family, the Third Circuit's denial of their petition likely represents the end of their legal options for remaining in the United States legally. The family could potentially face removal proceedings, though the timing and implementation of such proceedings would depend on various factors including enforcement priorities and available resources.
The case underscores the complex legal standards that asylum seekers must meet to obtain protection in the United States. While gang violence affects many communities in Central America, establishing that such violence constitutes persecution under U.S. asylum law requires meeting specific legal criteria that courts interpret narrowly.
The decision also highlights the ongoing challenges in the U.S. immigration system as courts work through a substantial backlog of cases involving people seeking protection from violence in their home countries. The Third Circuit's handling of this case reflects the careful legal analysis required in each asylum petition, even as similar fact patterns appear regularly in immigration courts across the country.