The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the denial of asylum for Erika Urquilla-Pereira, a Salvadoran woman who fled to the United States seeking refuge from MS-13 gang violence in her home country. The decision, filed Jan. 22, 2026, highlights the ongoing challenges faced by Central American asylum seekers attempting to establish credible fear claims based on gang violence.
In the case *Erika Evelin Urquilla-Pereira v. Attorney General United States of America* (3d Cir. 2026), Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro wrote for the panel that while the court "does not doubt MS-13 is a harrowing presence in her homeland," Urquilla presented insufficient evidence to support her asylum claim. The court noted she "presented no evidence that anyone in the gang harmed her, threatened her, or even spoke to her before she fled."
Urquilla entered the United States on Aug. 9, 2015, near Hidalgo, Texas, as an unaccompanied minor. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently initiated removal proceedings against her. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In 2019, she gave birth to a son.
During removal proceedings before Immigration Judge Shana W. Chen, Urquilla testified that she fled El Salvador to escape violent gangs, particularly MS-13. Her testimony centered on the disappearance of her cousin Milton, whom she suspected had been killed by the gang. However, she acknowledged that no one knew whether Milton was "alive or dead" or if MS-13 had actually targeted him.
The case illustrates the legal challenges asylum seekers face when trying to establish persecution claims based on generalized violence rather than specific targeting. Under U.S. immigration law, asylum applicants must demonstrate they have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
The Third Circuit's decision follows a pattern of federal appellate courts requiring concrete evidence of individualized threats rather than accepting claims based on general country conditions, even in nations plagued by severe gang violence. El Salvador has been particularly affected by MS-13 and other criminal organizations that have created widespread instability and forced many residents to flee their homes.
The Board of Immigration Appeals had previously affirmed the immigration judge's denial of Urquilla's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, leading to her petition for review to the Third Circuit. The appeals court's three-judge panel, consisting of Judges Patty Shwartz, Peter Chung, and Thomas Ambro, heard the case under Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 34.1(a) on Jan. 16, 2026.
The decision was marked as "not precedential," meaning it does not constitute binding precedent for future cases under the court's Internal Operating Procedures. This designation is common for immigration cases that turn on their specific factual circumstances rather than novel legal questions.
Urquilla's case reflects broader immigration policy debates about how U.S. asylum law should address violence in Central America, where criminal gangs have created conditions that drive thousands to seek refuge in the United States. Advocates argue that current legal standards fail to adequately protect individuals fleeing gang violence, while others maintain that asylum law requires evidence of targeted persecution rather than generalized fear.
The Third Circuit's ruling means Urquilla faces removal to El Salvador unless she pursues other legal remedies or her immigration status changes through other means. The decision adds to the body of case law examining how courts evaluate asylum claims based on gang violence in Central America.
For asylum seekers from countries affected by gang violence, the decision underscores the importance of documenting specific threats or incidents of persecution rather than relying solely on country condition evidence. Immigration attorneys representing similar clients may need to focus on gathering detailed evidence of individualized targeting to meet the legal standards established by federal courts.
The case also highlights the particular vulnerabilities faced by unaccompanied minors who arrive at the U.S. border seeking protection. Urquilla was a minor when she entered the United States, but the court's analysis focused on the legal standards for asylum rather than her age at entry.
As immigration courts continue to grapple with cases involving gang violence from Central America, decisions like Urquilla's may influence how similar claims are evaluated and what evidence immigration judges require to grant protection. The ongoing violence in El Salvador and neighboring countries suggests that such cases will continue to come before U.S. courts as individuals seek refuge from dangerous conditions in their home countries.