The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran mother and her minor son seeking asylum and other forms of immigration relief, according to a memorandum decision issued Jan. 21.
Veronica Aguilar-Aldana and Anibal Eduardo Solorzano-Aguilar, both natives of El Salvador, had sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of their appeal from an Immigration Judge's decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Clifton, Bade, and Collins, issued an unpublished memorandum affirming the lower court decisions. The court determined the case was suitable for decision without oral argument, as permitted under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The case stems from proceedings before an Immigration Judge who initially denied the family's applications for protection from removal. The petitioners then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed their appeal under *Matter of Burbano*, a 1994 precedent that allows the BIA to summarily affirm immigration judge decisions without detailed analysis.
Under the *Burbano* framework, when the BIA affirms an Immigration Judge's decision without expressing disagreement with the judge's reasoning or conclusions, appellate courts review both decisions and treat the Immigration Judge's reasons as those of the BIA. This procedural standard was established in *Gutierrez v. Holder* (9th Cir. 2011), which the court cited in its brief memorandum.
The Ninth Circuit exercised jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, the federal statute that governs judicial review of immigration proceedings. This provision allows individuals to petition federal courts of appeals for review of final removal orders and certain other immigration decisions.
The petitioners had sought three distinct forms of relief from removal. Asylum protection is available to individuals who demonstrate persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Withholding of removal provides similar protection but with a higher burden of proof, requiring applicants to show it is more likely than not they would face persecution if returned to their home country.
The Convention Against Torture provides a third avenue for relief, protecting individuals who can demonstrate they would more likely than not be tortured if returned to their home country. Unlike asylum, CAT protection does not require the persecution to be based on one of the five protected grounds.
El Salvador has been a significant source of asylum claims in recent years due to widespread violence, economic instability, and gang activity. The country has faced challenges with organized crime groups that have created dangerous conditions for many residents, leading to increased migration to the United States.
The court's decision was issued as an unpublished memorandum, meaning it does not set binding precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This procedural designation is typical for cases that do not present novel legal issues or where the court determines the case can be resolved through application of existing law.
The case was assigned Agency Numbers A202-144-506 and A202-144-507, reflecting the separate proceedings for the mother and her minor son. Immigration cases involving families often proceed on parallel tracks while allowing for consideration of family unity factors in the analysis.
The respondent in the case was listed as Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, though this reflects the procedural practice of naming the Attorney General as the respondent in immigration appeals rather than indicating Bondi's current role in the federal government.
The timing of the decision, submitted and filed on the same day in January 2026, suggests the court moved efficiently to resolve the petition. The panel's determination that oral argument was unnecessary indicates the legal issues presented were straightforward under existing circuit precedent.
For the petitioners, the denial represents the exhaustion of their administrative and initial judicial review options. While the memorandum decision does not detail the specific factual or legal basis for the denial, the court's brief treatment suggests the claims did not present compelling grounds for reversal of the lower court decisions.
The case reflects ongoing challenges faced by asylum seekers from Central America, where complex factors including violence, poverty, and institutional instability continue to drive migration despite legal obstacles to obtaining protection in the United States. The procedural nature of the court's decision leaves the underlying factual and legal determinations of the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals intact.