The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has denied asylum protection for a Guatemalan mother and her two minor children who claimed persecution based on their indigenous Chuj tribal identity. The unpublished decision, filed Feb. 4, affirmed immigration court rulings that rejected the family's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Petrona Sebastian Diego and her children, identified in court documents as D.M.H.S. and G.H.S., entered the United States in February 2018 without valid entry documents. The family applied for admission and were charged with removability, prompting their applications for various forms of immigration relief.
The family based their asylum claims on membership in three particular social groups: the indigenous tribal group of Chuj, Guatemalan women, and Sebastian Diego's nuclear family. The Chuj are an indigenous Maya people primarily located in Guatemala's western highlands and southeastern Mexico.
During a counseled hearing in 2022, Sebastian Diego testified about the persecution she and her family allegedly faced in Guatemala. The immigration judge made extensive findings regarding her testimony and claims. Notably, the judge determined that Sebastian Diego was a credible witness, lending weight to her account of events in Guatemala.
The immigration judge also ruled that two of the three claimed particular social groups were legally cognizable under asylum law. Specifically, the judge found that both the indigenous tribal group of Chuj and Sebastian Diego's nuclear family qualified as particular social groups that could form the basis for asylum claims. This finding was significant, as establishing membership in a cognizable particular social group is a key requirement for asylum eligibility.
However, despite these favorable credibility and social group findings, the immigration judge ultimately denied all of Sebastian Diego's applications. The judge concluded that Sebastian Diego failed to establish several critical elements required for asylum protection.
Most importantly, the judge found that Sebastian Diego "did not tie the alleged persecution" to her membership in the recognized social groups. This nexus requirement is fundamental to asylum law - applicants must demonstrate that any persecution they suffered or fear was "on account of" their membership in a protected category such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group.
The judge also determined that Sebastian Diego did not prove she had suffered or would suffer harm rising to the level of persecution based on her group memberships. Under immigration law, persecution must be more than mere harassment or discrimination - it must involve serious harm or a well-founded fear of such harm.
Additionally, the immigration judge found several other deficiencies in Sebastian Diego's case. The judge noted that she did not attempt to permanently relocate to another part of Guatemala to avoid the alleged persecution, which can be relevant to assessing whether protection is available within the home country. The judge also found that Sebastian Diego was not harmed by any Guatemalan public official, which is relevant to Convention Against Torture claims that require government involvement or acquiescence.
Further undermining her claims, the judge found that Sebastian Diego did not report the alleged private harm to Guatemalan police. This failure to seek state protection can weaken asylum claims, as applicants generally must show that their home government is unable or unwilling to protect them from persecution.
Following the adverse immigration judge decision, Sebastian Diego appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In May 2025, the Board issued a decision on her appeal, though the specific details of that ruling are not provided in the available court documents.
Subsequently, Sebastian Diego petitioned the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the Board's decision. The case was submitted to a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Loken, Kelly, and Grasz on Jan. 30, 2026.
The Eighth Circuit's Feb. 4 decision was issued as an unpublished per curiam opinion, meaning it was decided unanimously by the panel without a single judge taking credit as the author. Unpublished decisions generally carry less precedential weight than published opinions but are still binding on the parties involved.
The denial of Sebastian Diego's petition means that she and her children face removal proceedings and potential deportation to Guatemala. The family's case highlights the complex legal standards governing asylum claims and the challenges faced by indigenous applicants in establishing the required nexus between their identity and alleged persecution.
The decision also reflects broader patterns in immigration law, where establishing particular social group membership is often easier than proving the causation requirements that link persecution to group membership. Indigenous groups from Guatemala and other Central American countries have faced varying degrees of success in U.S. immigration courts when claiming asylum based on their ethnic identity.
With their appeals exhausted at the circuit court level, Sebastian Diego and her children would need to seek review by the Supreme Court to continue their legal challenge, though the high court accepts very few immigration cases for review each term.