The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an asylum petition by a Salvadoran woman in one of the first immigration cases to be filed under newly confirmed Attorney General Pamela Bondi, according to court documents filed Jan. 2.
In *Garcia-Manzanares v. Bondi*, the appeals court upheld a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing Luz Ilvea Garcia-Manzanares' claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The case represents an early test of immigration enforcement under the new attorney general's tenure.
Garcia-Manzanares, described in court documents as a native and citizen of El Salvador, had petitioned the Fifth Circuit to review the BIA's order that upheld an immigration judge's removal order. The appeals court panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, issued a per curiam opinion denying her petition.
The timing of the case filing is notable as it comes during Bondi's first days as attorney general. As the head of the Justice Department, the attorney general oversees the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which includes both immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals. This administrative structure means that asylum and removal cases are ultimately decided under the attorney general's authority.
The Fifth Circuit applied the substantial evidence standard in reviewing the BIA's denial of Garcia-Manzanares' asylum and withholding claims, citing *Zhang v. Gonzales* (5th Cir. 2005). Under this standard, federal appeals courts may not disturb the BIA's decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.
The court's decision provides limited details about the specific grounds for Garcia-Manzanares' asylum claim or the circumstances that led to her removal proceedings. The opinion was not designated for publication under Fifth Circuit rules, indicating it was considered a routine matter that does not establish new legal precedent.
Asylum law requires applicants to demonstrate they face persecution in their home country based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Withholding of removal provides similar protection but with a higher burden of proof, requiring applicants to show it is more likely than not they would face persecution if returned.
Protection under the Convention Against Torture offers another avenue for relief, requiring proof that an individual would more likely than not face torture by or with government acquiescence if returned to their home country.
El Salvador has been a significant source of asylum claims in recent years due to widespread violence from criminal gangs, economic instability, and other factors that drive migration to the United States. However, immigration courts have historically had mixed results in granting asylum to Salvadoran nationals, often requiring detailed evidence of individualized persecution.
The Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, has jurisdiction over one of the busiest immigration court systems in the country. The circuit has generally taken a restrictive approach to asylum claims in recent years, though outcomes vary significantly based on the specific facts of each case.
Bondi's confirmation as attorney general has drawn attention from immigration advocates and practitioners who are closely watching for any policy changes that might affect asylum processing or immigration enforcement priorities. The attorney general has broad authority to shape immigration policy through regulatory changes, case law development, and enforcement priorities.
The case also highlights the ongoing challenges facing asylum seekers in federal court, where the substantial evidence standard creates a high bar for overturning immigration judge and BIA decisions. Appeals courts typically defer to the factual findings of immigration judges who observe witnesses firsthand and evaluate credibility.
Garcia-Manzanares' case was assigned agency number A208 140 808, indicating it proceeded through the standard immigration court process before reaching the federal appeals level. The notation suggests her case was among the hundreds of thousands of removal proceedings that flow through the immigration court system annually.
The per curiam nature of the opinion, issued without a single author's name, suggests the three-judge panel reached a unanimous decision. Such opinions are common in immigration appeals where the legal issues are straightforward and do not require extensive legal analysis.
For immigration practitioners, the case serves as an early indicator that asylum adjudication continues under established legal standards despite the change in attorney general. The substantial evidence review standard and existing precedents appear to remain in effect as the new administration settles into office.
The denial leaves Garcia-Manzanares with limited options for further appeal. She could potentially seek Supreme Court review through a petition for certiorari, though the high court rarely accepts immigration cases unless they involve significant legal questions or circuit splits.
The case reflects the broader challenges facing asylum seekers from Central America, where proving individualized persecution often requires overcoming skepticism about country conditions claims and demonstrating specific threats beyond generalized violence or economic hardship.