The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum opinion Jan. 15 in *Torres-Contreras v. Bondi*, reviewing a petition from a mother and daughter from El Salvador who sought to overturn an immigration court's denial of their asylum applications. The case highlights ongoing challenges faced by Central American families seeking protection in U.S. immigration courts.
Reina Madelin Torres-Contreras and her minor daughter, both natives and citizens of El Salvador, petitioned the federal appeals court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge's decision. The immigration court had denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
The family represented themselves in the federal appeal, appearing pro se before a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Bennett, Bade, and Sung. The court decided the case without oral arguments, determining it was suitable for decision based on the written submissions alone under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2).
The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over immigration appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, which governs judicial review of immigration proceedings. In reviewing the case, the court applied established standards for examining immigration decisions, including de novo review for legal questions regarding whether a particular social group is cognizable for asylum purposes.
The court cited precedent from *Nguyen v. Barr* (9th Cir. 2020), which established the framework for reviewing legal determinations about cognizable social groups in asylum cases. The appeals court also referenced standards from *Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland* for reviewing agency conclusions regarding social distinction and whether evidence shows that a specific society recognizes a particular social group.
Asylum law requires petitioners to demonstrate persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. For withholding of removal claims, applicants must show it is more likely than not they would face persecution if returned to their home country. Convention Against Torture protection requires showing it is more likely than not an applicant would be tortured if removed to the proposed country.
The case reflects broader patterns in immigration law, where families from Central American countries often seek protection based on violence and instability in their home nations. El Salvador has experienced high levels of gang violence and other security challenges that frequently form the basis for asylum claims by its nationals.
Pro se representation, as seen in this case, presents additional challenges for immigration petitioners. Without legal counsel, applicants must navigate complex procedural requirements and legal standards that can significantly impact their chances of success. Immigration courts and appeals courts regularly hear cases involving self-represented parties, particularly in removal proceedings where appointed counsel is not guaranteed.
The Board of Immigration Appeals serves as the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. BIA decisions can be appealed to federal circuit courts, as occurred in this case. The Ninth Circuit hears a significant portion of immigration appeals due to its jurisdiction over states with large immigrant populations and active immigration enforcement.
Circuit court memorandum opinions like this one are not published for general distribution and do not establish binding precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit rules. However, they reflect ongoing judicial interpretation of immigration law and provide insight into how courts apply established legal standards to individual cases.
The timing of this decision comes as immigration policy continues to evolve under the new administration, with Attorney General Pamela Bondi now serving as the named respondent in immigration appeals. Immigration courts and federal appeals courts maintain heavy caseloads of removal proceedings and related appeals.
For families like the Torres-Contreras petitioners, federal court review represents often the final opportunity to challenge negative immigration decisions. The appeals process provides important oversight of administrative immigration decisions, ensuring that legal standards are properly applied and that due process protections are maintained.
The outcome of this case demonstrates the challenging legal landscape facing asylum seekers from Central America, where establishing eligibility for protection requires meeting specific evidentiary and legal standards. The decision adds to the substantial body of immigration case law that guides future proceedings in similar cases.
Immigration attorneys and advocates continue to monitor federal court decisions for guidance on how courts interpret asylum law and related protections. While this memorandum opinion does not create binding precedent, it reflects the ongoing judicial review process that ensures immigration decisions comply with applicable legal standards and constitutional requirements.