The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has denied a petition for review from a Guatemalan mother and her child seeking asylum in the United States, upholding the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to reject their applications for protection.
In *Rusby Dionisia Aguilar-Hernandez v. Pamela Bondi*, filed Jan. 6, 2026, Chief Judge Steven Colloton wrote for a three-judge panel that found no legal error in the immigration board's decision. The court also determined that substantial evidence supported the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
The case involves Aguilar-Hernandez and her minor son, Jose Adiel Arreaga Aguilar, both citizens of Guatemala who sought protection in the United States. Because the child sought asylum as a derivative beneficiary of his mother's application, the court denied his petition as well when it rejected hers.
According to court documents, Aguilar-Hernandez's asylum claim centered on domestic violence she experienced in Guatemala. The petition detailed a relationship that began in 2011 when Aguilar-Hernandez was 15 years old and met Cesar Humberto Arreaga Soto, then 19. The two began a romantic relationship and moved in together, and their son Jose was born in June 2012.
The court records indicate that after Jose's birth, the relationship between the parents deteriorated rapidly. Aguilar-Hernandez alleged that Arreaga Soto subjected her to systematic abuse, including weekly rape and daily physical violence that left scars and bruises on her body. The alleged abuser threatened to kill Aguilar-Hernandez if she disclosed the abuse and regularly referred to her using derogatory terms.
Despite the alleged severity of the abuse, the court noted that Aguilar-Hernandez never filed a police report regarding the incidents. This factual finding appears to have been among the considerations in the immigration proceedings that led to the denial of her asylum application.
The Eighth Circuit's decision represents the latest step in what has been a lengthy legal process. The case was originally submitted to the appeals court on Sept. 17, 2025, before being decided nearly four months later. The panel included Chief Judge Colloton along with Circuit Judges Smith and Shepherd.
Asylum law requires applicants to demonstrate persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on protected grounds such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Domestic violence cases can qualify for asylum protection under certain circumstances, particularly when the violence is connected to the victim's membership in a particular social group and the government is unable or unwilling to protect the victim.
The Convention Against Torture provides an additional avenue for protection for individuals who can demonstrate they would more likely than not face torture if returned to their home country. This protection has a higher standard than asylum but does not require showing persecution based on a protected ground.
Withholding of removal represents another form of protection available to individuals who can show a clear probability of persecution upon return to their home country. Like asylum, it requires demonstrating persecution based on protected grounds, but the standard of proof is higher than for asylum claims.
The Board of Immigration Appeals serves as the highest administrative tribunal for interpreting and applying immigration laws. The BIA's decisions can be appealed to federal circuit courts, as occurred in this case. However, federal courts apply a deferential standard of review to BIA decisions, requiring substantial evidence to support factual findings and reviewing legal conclusions for abuse of discretion.
The case comes as immigration courts face significant backlogs and asylum seekers continue to present claims based on domestic violence and gender-based persecution. The outcome demonstrates the challenges faced by asylum seekers in meeting the legal standards required for protection, particularly in cases involving intimate partner violence.
For Aguilar-Hernandez and her son, the Eighth Circuit's denial of their petition likely exhausts their appeals options within the federal court system. The decision upholds the immigration authorities' determination that their circumstances do not meet the legal requirements for asylum or other forms of protection under U.S. immigration law.
The case was docketed as No. 24-2427 in the Eighth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over immigration appeals from several states in the Midwest and Great Plains regions. Attorney General Pamela Bondi was named as the respondent in her official capacity as head of the Department of Justice, which oversees immigration enforcement and proceedings.