The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a petition for review filed by Karla Rubenia Cruz De Saenz in a case that attracted significant attention from immigration advocacy organizations, the court ruled January 16, 2026.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Paul V. Niemeyer, and Roger L. Gregory, unanimously denied the petition in an unpublished opinion authored by Judge Wilkinson. The case, *Cruz De Saenz v. Bondi*, challenged an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Cruz De Saenz, described in court documents as a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought review of the immigration board's decision through her attorney Liana Elizabeth Montecinos of Montecinos Immigration Law LLC in Silver Spring, Maryland. The case was argued before the Fourth Circuit on September 9, 2025.
The appeal drew substantial support from immigration rights organizations, with seven prominent groups filing amicus curiae briefs supporting the petitioner. The organizations included the American Immigration Lawyers Association, AMICA Center for Immigrant Rights, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Immigration Law Clinics, Just Neighbors, Pisgah Legal Services, and the Tahirih Justice Center.
Legal representation for the amici curiae included attorneys from Duke University School of Law's Immigrant Rights Clinic and Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinical Program. Katherine L. Evans and Charles Shane Ellison from Duke's clinic, along with several attorneys from Harvard's program including Sabrineh Ardalan, Deborah Anker, Nancy Kelly, John Willshire Carrera, Meredith Gudesblatt, and Daisy Hunter-Haydon, filed briefs supporting Cruz De Saenz's position.
The U.S. Department of Justice defended the Board of Immigration Appeals decision, with Aric Allan Anderson arguing the case for the government. Additional government attorneys on the brief included Brett A. Shumate, who served as Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Holly M. Smith, Assistant Director of the Office of Immigration Litigation in the Civil Division.
The case name indicates that Pamela Jo Bondi, currently serving as Attorney General, was the named respondent in the matter. Immigration appeals typically name the Attorney General as the respondent since the Department of Justice oversees immigration enforcement through various agencies.
While the full details of Cruz De Saenz's immigration case remain limited due to the unpublished nature of the opinion, the involvement of multiple organizations specializing in immigrant rights suggests the case involved significant legal issues affecting asylum seekers or individuals in removal proceedings. The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and Tahirih Justice Center, in particular, focus on cases involving women and vulnerable populations seeking protection in the United States.
The Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction covers appeals from federal courts in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Immigration cases frequently come before the circuit court as petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals decisions, particularly those involving asylum claims, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
The timing of the case, with arguments held in September 2025 and a decision issued in January 2026, reflects the typical timeline for immigration appeals in federal court. The four-month period between oral arguments and the decision suggests the panel gave careful consideration to the legal issues presented.
As an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit's decision will not serve as binding precedent for future cases within the circuit. However, unpublished opinions can still provide guidance on how courts interpret immigration law and may influence similar cases.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in U.S. immigration law and the role of advocacy organizations in supporting individuals navigating the complex immigration system. The coordination between multiple immigrant rights groups to file amicus briefs demonstrates the broader legal community's interest in cases that could affect immigration policy and practice.
Immigration attorneys and advocacy organizations continue to challenge Board of Immigration Appeals decisions they view as inconsistent with legal protections for asylum seekers and other vulnerable populations. While this particular challenge was unsuccessful, the pattern of appeals reflects ongoing efforts to ensure fair application of immigration laws and protections for individuals seeking refuge in the United States.
The denial of the petition means the Board of Immigration Appeals decision stands, though the specific immigration consequences for Cruz De Saenz depend on the underlying proceedings that were not detailed in the available court documents. The case adds to the body of Fourth Circuit immigration jurisprudence as courts continue to address complex questions about asylum law, removal proceedings, and related protections under U.S. immigration statutes.