The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied an asylum petition from a mother and daughter from El Salvador, upholding the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to dismiss their application for protection under U.S. immigration law.
In *Marquez-Cruz v. Bondi* (4th Cir. 2026), Ana Rafaela Marquez-Cruz sought review on behalf of herself and her minor daughter M.P.G.M. after the immigration board dismissed their appeal from an immigration judge's denial of asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
The Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished per curiam opinion on January 8, 2026, finding no reversible error in the lower tribunal's decision. Circuit Judges Albert Diaz Wynn and Toby Heytens, along with Senior Circuit Judge William W. Traxler Jr., heard the case, which was submitted on December 3, 2025.
According to court documents, Marquez-Cruz and her daughter are natives and citizens of El Salvador. The case originated from incidents that began in 2003 when Marquez-Cruz was approximately 12 years old. At that time, MS-13 gang member Jose Vioso Zetino allegedly found her attractive and wanted her to be his girlfriend.
The court documents detail a pattern of harassment and unwanted contact. Zetino began following and harassing Marquez-Cruz in public places. Despite her lack of interest and resistance to his advances, he would grab, hug, and kiss her against her will. The harassment would sometimes end when her mother or other bystanders intervened, forcing Zetino to release her.
The case represents the latest immigration matter to come before Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who was named as the respondent in the appeal. The Department of Justice was represented by Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Director Erica B. Miles, and Rachel P. Berman-Vaporis from the Office of Immigration Litigation's Civil Division.
Marquez-Cruz was represented by Ronald D. Richey of the Law Office of Ronald D. Richey in Germantown, Maryland. The petitioners sought protection under three different legal theories: asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Asylum law requires applicants to demonstrate persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Statutory withholding of removal provides protection for individuals who can show it is more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to their home country. The Convention Against Torture offers protection to those who can establish they would more likely than not face torture if removed.
The Fourth Circuit's decision to deny the petition means the immigration judge's original denial stands, and the family's request for protection under U.S. immigration law has been exhausted at the federal appellate level. The court's finding of "no reversible error" indicates the appeals court determined the Board of Immigration Appeals properly applied immigration law and procedures in dismissing the case.
Unpublished opinions like this one do not establish binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. However, they reflect how courts are applying current immigration law to individual cases involving gang violence and persecution claims from Central America.
The case highlights ongoing challenges faced by asylum seekers from El Salvador, where gang violence remains a persistent problem. MS-13, also known as Mara Salvatrucha, is a transnational criminal organization that originated in Los Angeles but has significant presence in El Salvador and other Central American countries.
Immigration courts have grappled with how to evaluate claims involving gang violence, particularly when the persecution is based on gender or resistance to gang recruitment. The legal standards for establishing persecution and the particular social group requirements in asylum law continue to evolve through federal court decisions.
The denial of this petition reflects the high burden asylum seekers face in federal court review of immigration decisions. Federal appeals courts can only reverse immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals when they find legal errors or determinations not supported by substantial evidence.
The case number 25-1219 was submitted to the Fourth Circuit in December 2025 and decided within approximately one month, which is relatively quick for federal appellate review. The expedited timeline reflects the court's heavy immigration caseload and the procedural nature of many immigration appeals.
For Marquez-Cruz and her daughter, the denial represents the end of their federal court challenge to the immigration system's rejection of their protection claims. Without successful federal court intervention, they remain subject to removal proceedings under current immigration enforcement policies.