The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review filed by Brazilian nationals Erica De Castro-Lobo and her son Jouberth Henrique Lobo-de Souza, who challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' rejection of their asylum claims. The court issued its opinion Jan. 22, 2026, in *De Castro-Lobo v. Bondi* (6th Cir. 2026).
The petitioners, who are natives and citizens of Brazil, faced removal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security in 2016. After conceding removability, De Castro-Lobo and her son sought three forms of protection: asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture to prevent their deportation to Brazil.
According to court documents, De Castro-Lobo alleged she was in an abusive relationship with her son's father, claiming he repeatedly subjected her to sexual assault. The petitioners argued these circumstances warranted protection under U.S. immigration law, which provides relief for individuals who demonstrate persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution in their home countries.
The Board of Immigration Appeals initially denied all three requests for relief. The BIA concluded that the petitioners' Convention Against Torture claim failed because they could not demonstrate that the Brazilian government would participate in, acquiesce to, or be willfully blind to any torture they might face upon return.
On appeal to the Sixth Circuit, a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Jane Branstetter Stranch, John K. Bush, and Chad A. Readler reviewed the BIA's decision. Circuit Judge John K. Bush authored the court's opinion.
The appeals court affirmed the BIA's ruling on multiple grounds. Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the court found no basis to disturb the BIA's conclusion that petitioners failed to meet the required burden of proof. Under the Convention Against Torture, applicants must show that torture is more likely than not to occur with the consent or acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity.
The Sixth Circuit determined that petitioners had not demonstrated the Brazilian government would be complicit in any potential harm they might face. The court noted that the BIA's factual findings on this issue were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.
Regarding the asylum and withholding of removal claims, the appeals court found these had not been properly exhausted before the BIA. Under established immigration law precedent, petitioners must present all arguments and evidence to the immigration court and BIA before raising them on appeal to the federal courts. The exhaustion requirement ensures that immigration agencies have the opportunity to consider and rule on all claims before federal court review.
The court's decision reflects the high burden asylum seekers face in demonstrating eligibility for protection. To qualify for asylum, applicants must show they suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Withholding of removal requires an even higher standard, with applicants needing to prove it is more likely than not they would face persecution.
Convention Against Torture protection, while not requiring a nexus to protected grounds like asylum, demands proof that torture is more likely than not with government involvement or acquiescence. This standard has proven challenging for many applicants, particularly in cases involving domestic violence where government complicity may be difficult to establish.
The case was designated as "not recommended for publication," meaning it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases. Such designations are common for routine immigration appeals that do not establish new legal principles or resolve circuit splits.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi was named as the respondent in the case, representing the federal government's position in defending the BIA's decision. The case was filed in the Sixth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over immigration appeals from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
The denial leaves De Castro-Lobo and her son facing removal to Brazil unless they pursue other forms of relief or file additional applications based on changed circumstances. Immigration law provides limited options for reopening cases, typically requiring new evidence that was unavailable during the original proceedings or demonstration of changed country conditions.
The decision comes amid ongoing national debates over immigration policy and asylum standards. Immigration attorneys often note the challenges faced by domestic violence survivors in meeting asylum requirements, particularly in establishing government involvement or inability to protect victims.
This case illustrates the complex procedural requirements in immigration appeals and the narrow grounds for federal court review of BIA decisions. Courts typically defer to agency expertise on factual determinations while ensuring proper application of legal standards and procedural requirements.