The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mixed ruling Monday in *Guevara-Serrano v. Bondi*, partially granting a petition for review of an immigration case involving domestic violence and remanding the matter for further proceedings. The decision addresses key questions about asylum eligibility for victims of domestic violence in countries where government protection may be unavailable.
The case centers on Gaby Gisselle Guevara-Serrano, a Honduran national who sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture after fleeing repeated domestic violence. According to court records, Guevara-Serrano credibly testified that she suffered repeated beatings at the hands of her partner, who was a gang member. During one particularly severe incident when her partner was intoxicated, he stabbed her in the stomach. The abuse frequently occurred when she attempted to attend church services.
The Board of Immigration Appeals had previously denied Guevara-Serrano's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. The BIA's decision hinged on its finding that because the petitioner did not report the beatings to Honduran authorities, she had failed to establish that the government of Honduras was unable or unwilling to protect her. This requirement to show government inability or unwillingness to provide protection is a key element in asylum cases involving domestic violence.
In a decision written by Judge Mary M. Schroeder, the three-judge panel concluded that the evidence in the record compelled the conclusion that reporting the beatings to the Honduran government would have been futile. This finding directly contradicted the BIA's reasoning and formed the basis for the court's decision to grant the petition for review on the asylum and withholding of removal claims.
The Ninth Circuit's analysis focused on the practical realities facing domestic violence victims in Honduras, particularly when the perpetrator has gang affiliations. The court examined whether requiring a victim to report abuse to authorities makes sense when such reporting would likely be ineffective or could potentially increase the victim's danger.
Judge Michelle T. Friedland wrote a separate concurrence, agreeing with the majority that the record compelled the conclusion reached by the panel. The presence of a concurring opinion suggests there may have been nuances in the legal analysis that merited additional commentary, though the full text of the concurrence was not available in the court's summary.
The court did not address the petitioner's Convention Against Torture claim, noting that it was unexhausted. This procedural issue means that aspect of her case had not been fully litigated through the administrative process, preventing the appeals court from reviewing it at this time.
The decision represents a significant development in how federal courts evaluate domestic violence asylum cases, particularly regarding the requirement that applicants demonstrate their home government's inability or unwillingness to provide protection. Immigration law requires asylum seekers to show they face persecution and that their government cannot or will not protect them from that persecution.
Domestic violence asylum cases have been particularly challenging in U.S. immigration courts. The legal framework for such claims has evolved considerably over recent years, with courts grappling with questions about when private violence can constitute the basis for asylum protection and what level of government response or lack thereof is sufficient to establish a viable claim.
The case was argued and submitted on Nov. 20, 2025, in San Jose, California, before Judges Schroeder and Friedland, along with District Judge Karen E. Schreier of South Dakota, who was sitting by designation. The opinion was filed Jan. 20, 2026.
The remand means that immigration authorities must reconsider Guevara-Serrano's asylum and withholding of removal claims in light of the Ninth Circuit's findings. The immigration judge and potentially the BIA will need to reevaluate whether she qualifies for protection given the court's conclusion that reporting the abuse would have been futile.
This ruling could have broader implications for similar cases within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Immigration attorneys representing domestic violence survivors may point to this decision when arguing that their clients should not be penalized for failing to report abuse to authorities in countries where such reporting would be ineffective.
The case also highlights ongoing tensions between the executive branch's immigration enforcement priorities and federal court interpretations of asylum law. With Pamela Bondi serving as Attorney General, the case represents one of the early immigration decisions involving the current administration's policies.
The Ninth Circuit's decision demonstrates the court's willingness to scrutinize BIA findings when the record evidence appears to contradict the agency's conclusions, particularly in cases involving vulnerable populations like domestic violence survivors seeking protection in the United States.