The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review filed by a Salvadoran family challenging a Board of Immigration Appeals order in *Rodriguez-Santamaria v. Bondi*, according to a memorandum decision filed Jan. 27, 2026.
Franklin Enoc Rodriguez-Santamaria, his partner Morena Abigail Torres-Hernandez, and their minor daughter Mayerli Estefani Rodriguez-Torres petitioned the appeals court to review the BIA's dismissal of their appeal from an Immigration Judge's denial of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Mary McKeown, Richard Paez, and Roopali Desai, unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument. However, the decision was not unanimous, with Judge Paez filing a partial concurrence and partial dissent, indicating disagreement among the panel on certain aspects of the immigration law issues presented.
The case arose after the petitioners, who are natives and citizens of El Salvador, entered the United States and subsequently filed claims for various forms of relief from removal. The Immigration Judge initially denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The family then appealed to the BIA, which dismissed their appeal, prompting the petition for review to the Ninth Circuit.
The appeals court exercised jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and applied the substantial evidence standard of review for the BIA's denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection claims. This standard, established in *Garcia-Milian v. Holder* (9th Cir. 2014), requires the court to determine whether the immigration authorities' findings are supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the administrative record.
Under the substantial evidence standard, the Ninth Circuit defers to the BIA's factual findings unless they are not supported by substantial evidence. This creates a high bar for petitioners seeking to overturn negative immigration decisions, as courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the administrative agencies unless the evidence compels a different conclusion.
The case involved multiple agency numbers (A220-808-064, A220-808-065, and A220-808-066), reflecting the individual proceedings for each family member. This suggests the immigration cases were processed both as individual matters and as a family unit, which is common in immigration proceedings involving related petitioners.
Asylum claims require 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. Withholding of removal, governed by both U.S. law and international treaty obligations, provides protection for individuals who face persecution but requires a higher standard of proof than asylum. CAT protection prohibits removal to countries where individuals would more likely than not face torture.
The Ninth Circuit's decision to issue a memorandum opinion indicates the court determined the case did not present novel legal issues or require precedential guidance for future cases. Memorandum opinions are not appropriate for publication and do not serve as binding precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Judge Paez's partial concurrence and dissent suggests disagreement within the panel on specific legal or factual issues, though the content of his separate opinion was not included in the available record. Such split opinions in immigration cases often reflect different interpretations of evidence, legal standards, or the application of asylum law to particular factual circumstances.
The case was submitted to the panel on Nov. 20, 2025, following briefing by the parties, and decided approximately two months later. The relatively quick turnaround reflects the Ninth Circuit's efforts to address its substantial immigration caseload efficiently while ensuring thorough review of petitioners' claims.
Rodriguez-Santamaria and his family were represented in their challenge to Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who serves as the named respondent in immigration appeals. The Attorney General's office typically defends BIA decisions through the Department of Justice's Office of Immigration Litigation.
The denial of the petition means the BIA's dismissal of the family's appeal stands, and they remain subject to removal proceedings. However, the family may still have options for relief, including potential motions to reopen their cases if new evidence emerges or circumstances change, or pursuing other forms of immigration relief for which they may be eligible.
This case reflects ongoing challenges facing immigrant families from Central America seeking protection in the United States. El Salvador has experienced significant violence and instability, leading many nationals to flee and seek refuge in the United States, though success rates for asylum claims vary depending on individual circumstances and the strength of evidence presented.
The Ninth Circuit handles a significant portion of the nation's immigration appeals, given its jurisdiction over border states including California, Arizona, and Washington. The court's immigration decisions often have broad implications for immigration law and policy in the western United States.