The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review filed by Josue Antonio Chicas-Lemos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, who challenged immigration authorities' denial of his asylum application. The February 5, 2026 memorandum decision upholds the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of multiple forms of protection.
Chicas-Lemos, who also goes by the aliases Josue Chicas, Josue Antonio Chicas Del Cid, and Josue Delchicas, had sought three forms of relief from removal: asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The case was assigned Agency Number A206-407-402 and Circuit Court Number 18-71959.
The three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Graber, Clifton, and Johnstone heard the case, which was submitted February 2, 2026 in Pasadena, California. The court determined the case was suitable for decision without oral argument under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2).
In its brief memorandum opinion marked "not for publication," the Ninth Circuit applied the standard that when the Board of Immigration Appeals conducts its own review of the record, appellate review is limited to the BIA's decision except to the extent that the immigration judge's opinion is expressly adopted. The court cited *Park v. Garland*, 72 F.4th 965, 974 (9th Cir. 2023) in establishing this review standard.
The central issue in the case involved the timing of Chicas-Lemos' asylum application. The court found that substantial evidence supported the determination that Chicas-Lemos did not apply for asylum within a reasonable time of changed circumstances. Additionally, the court concluded that extraordinary circumstances did not excuse his delay in filing the application.
Under federal immigration law, asylum seekers generally must file their applications within one year of arrival in the United States, though exceptions exist for changed circumstances in their home country or extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing. The court's finding suggests that neither exception applied to Chicas-Lemos' case.
The case represents one of many asylum appeals from Central American nationals that have come before the Ninth Circuit in recent years. El Salvador has faced ongoing challenges including gang violence, economic instability, and political unrest that have driven migration to the United States. However, asylum law requires applicants to demonstrate not only general country conditions but also individualized persecution or well-founded fear of persecution based on protected grounds such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
The denial of asylum typically leads to withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture claims being evaluated under different legal standards. Withholding of removal requires a showing that it is more likely than not that the applicant would face persecution if returned, while Convention Against Torture protection requires evidence that torture is more likely than not to occur with government acquiescence or inability to control private actors.
The court's memorandum disposition is designated as not appropriate for publication and does not constitute precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This designation indicates the court viewed the case as routine application of established legal principles rather than presenting novel legal issues requiring published guidance.
The case was filed against Pamela Bondi in her official capacity as Attorney General. Immigration cases are typically filed against the Attorney General as the head of the Department of Justice, which oversees the Executive Office for Immigration Review that includes both immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over immigration appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, which provides the statutory framework for judicial review of immigration decisions. This jurisdiction allows the circuit courts to review final orders of removal, though such review is limited in scope and generally focuses on questions of law and whether agency findings are supported by substantial evidence.
For Chicas-Lemos, the denial means he faces potential removal to El Salvador unless other legal avenues remain available. The decision reflects the challenges many asylum seekers face in navigating complex procedural requirements and evidentiary standards in immigration court proceedings.
The timing requirements for asylum applications remain a significant barrier for many potential applicants who may not understand their legal obligations or lack access to counsel immediately upon arrival. Immigration advocates continue to argue for reforms to these deadlines, while immigration enforcement officials maintain that clear deadlines are necessary for orderly processing of cases and preventing fraudulent claims.
The case adds to the substantial caseload of immigration appeals handled by the Ninth Circuit, which covers several states along the U.S.-Mexico border and processes a significant portion of the nation's immigration-related appeals.