The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review from Jose Amilcar Ortega-Alvarez, a native and citizen of El Salvador who sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The February 5, 2026 memorandum decision in *Ortega-Alvarez v. Bondi* (No. 18-70596) affirmed rulings by both an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals that rejected the petitioner's claims for protection.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Graber, Clifton, and Johnstone, unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument. The court applied established precedent from *Bhattarai v. Lynch* (9th Cir. 2016) in reviewing both the BIA's decision and the underlying immigration judge's findings, since the BIA both incorporated the immigration judge's analysis and provided its own reasoning.
Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the court reviewed factual findings underlying the denial for substantial evidence and examined questions of law de novo. The substantial evidence standard requires that factual determinations be supported by relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other reasonable minds might disagree.
The case represents part of the ongoing challenges faced by Central American asylum seekers in federal immigration courts. El Salvador has been a significant source of asylum claims in recent years, with applicants often citing violence from criminal organizations, domestic abuse, and other forms of persecution as grounds for protection under U.S. immigration law.
Asylum law requires that applicants demonstrate persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The persecution must be by the government or groups the government is unwilling or unable to control. Withholding of removal provides similar protection but requires a higher burden of proof, while Convention Against Torture protection applies when an applicant faces a likelihood of torture by or with government acquiescence.
The Board of Immigration Appeals serves as the highest administrative tribunal for interpreting and applying immigration laws. BIA decisions become precedential for immigration judges nationwide unless overturned by federal circuit courts. When immigration judges deny applications for relief, applicants may appeal to the BIA and subsequently petition federal courts of appeals for review.
The Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction includes California, where this case was submitted in Pasadena, along with eight other western states and Pacific territories. The circuit has handled thousands of immigration cases and has developed extensive precedent on asylum and withholding of removal standards, particularly for applicants from Central America.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi was named as the respondent in this case, representing the government's position in immigration proceedings. The Attorney General oversees the Department of Justice's immigration courts through the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which includes both immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The memorandum disposition indicates the decision will not be published in the Federal Reporter and creates no precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This means the ruling applies only to this specific case and cannot be cited as controlling authority in future proceedings, though it may be cited for persuasive value in certain circumstances.
The case number 18-70596 and agency number A208-282-084 suggest the immigration proceedings began several years ago, reflecting the often lengthy timeline of immigration cases as they move through administrative review and federal court appeals. Many asylum cases face significant delays due to court backlogs and the complexity of immigration law.
Central American asylum seekers have faced particular challenges in recent years as immigration courts have applied increasingly strict standards for establishing persecution claims. Courts have scrutinized whether claimed social groups meet legal requirements for particularity and social distinction, and whether applicants can demonstrate that persecution was motivated by protected characteristics rather than generalized violence or criminal activity.
The denial of Ortega-Alvarez's petition means he may face removal to El Salvador unless other forms of relief become available. Immigration law provides various forms of protection beyond asylum, including temporary protected status for certain countries and administrative relief such as prosecutorial discretion.
This decision reflects broader patterns in immigration appeals, where federal circuits frequently affirm BIA and immigration judge decisions. The substantial evidence standard of review makes it challenging for petitioners to overturn factual findings, while legal challenges must demonstrate clear error in the application of immigration statutes and regulations.
The Ninth Circuit processes thousands of immigration petitions annually, making it one of the busiest circuits for immigration appeals. The court's decisions significantly impact immigration law development and the outcomes for asylum seekers throughout the western United States.