The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review Tuesday in an immigration case involving a 47-year-old Salvadoran man seeking multiple forms of protection from deportation, marking one of the first immigration appeals decided against the administration of newly appointed Attorney General Pamela Bondi.
In *Lopez Alvarado v. Bondi* (6th Cir. 2026), the three-judge panel unanimously rejected Domingo Antonio Lopez Alvarado's challenge to immigration court rulings that denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Circuit Judge Jane B. Stranch wrote the opinion for the court, with Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton and Circuit Judge Joan Larsen concurring.
The case originated when Lopez Alvarado, now living in the United States, applied for the three forms of immigration relief after fleeing El Salvador. An Immigration Judge initially denied all three claims, finding that Lopez Alvarado had not met the legal standards required for any of the protections he sought.
The Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently affirmed the Immigration Judge's denials, but provided detailed reasoning for rejecting Lopez Alvarado's asylum and withholding of removal claims. The BIA concluded that his applications were untimely filed, that the harm he experienced in El Salvador did not constitute persecution under immigration law, and that he failed to establish the required connection between any harm he suffered and his membership in a particular social group.
Under federal immigration law, asylum seekers must generally file their applications within one year of arrival in the United States, though exceptions exist for extraordinary circumstances. The persecution standard requires showing that an individual suffered or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
For withholding of removal claims, applicants must demonstrate that their life or freedom would be threatened in their home country on account of one of the same five protected grounds. This protection requires a higher standard of proof than asylum, with applicants needing to show it is more likely than not they would face persecution if returned.
Regarding Lopez Alvarado's Convention Against Torture claim, the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge's denial after determining that he had not demonstrated he would more likely than not face torture if returned to El Salvador. The board also found that Lopez Alvarado failed to establish that Salvadoran government officials would acquiesce in any torture he might face.
The Convention Against Torture protection, established under international law and implemented in U.S. immigration proceedings, prohibits the removal of individuals to countries where they would more likely than not be tortured. Unlike asylum and withholding claims, CAT protection does not require showing persecution based on a protected characteristic, but it does require demonstrating government involvement or acquiescence in the torture.
On appeal to the Sixth Circuit, Lopez Alvarado challenged these findings, but the federal appeals court determined that substantial evidence supported the lower courts' rulings. The substantial evidence standard requires immigration courts' factual findings to be supported by relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to reach the conclusion.
The opinion, marked "not recommended for publication," indicates the court viewed the case as applying established legal principles rather than addressing novel questions of immigration law. Unpublished opinions, while binding on the parties involved, carry less precedential weight in future cases.
The case represents one of the earliest immigration appeals decided during Bondi's tenure as Attorney General, following her recent appointment by the current administration. As the nation's chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General oversees the Department of Justice's immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, making the office a frequent respondent in immigration appeals.
The Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and the court regularly hears immigration appeals from cases originating in those states. Immigration courts in the region handle thousands of cases annually involving individuals from Central and South America seeking various forms of protection from removal.
Lopez Alvarado's case reflects broader patterns in immigration litigation, where applicants from El Salvador and other Central American countries frequently seek protection based on violence and instability in their home countries. However, establishing the legal requirements for asylum, withholding, or CAT protection requires meeting specific evidentiary standards that can be challenging to satisfy.
The denial of Lopez Alvarado's petition means the BIA's decision stands, and he faces potential removal to El Salvador unless he pursues other legal options or qualifies for different forms of immigration relief. The Supreme Court rarely reviews immigration cases, making the circuit court decision likely the final word on his appeal.
The case highlights the complex legal standards governing immigration protection claims and the substantial evidence review applied by federal appeals courts when examining immigration court decisions.