The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed ruling Wednesday in a closely watched immigration case involving a Colombian family's petition for asylum and protection from removal, granting partial relief and remanding the matter for additional proceedings.
In *Riveros Leon v. Bondi*, the court reviewed a petition filed by Libardo Riveros Leon, his wife Edna Brigitte Diaz Vargas, and their two children, all Colombian nationals seeking protection in the United States. The family had challenged a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that dismissed their appeal from an immigration judge's denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Michelle Friedland and Ryan Nelson and visiting District Judge P. Casey Pitts from the Northern District of California, heard oral arguments in San Francisco on Nov. 13, 2025. The court filed its decision Feb. 5, marking the conclusion of a case that began with agency proceedings in 2024.
Judge Friedland authored a partial concurrence and partial dissent, signaling that the panel was divided on key aspects of the family's claims. The split opinion suggests complex legal issues were at stake, though the specific reasoning behind the court's decision was not detailed in the available court filing.
The case centers on the family's attempt to secure protection from removal to Colombia. The petitioners had applied for three forms of relief: asylum based on persecution or well-founded fear of persecution, withholding of removal under federal immigration law, and protection under the Convention Against Torture for individuals who would face torture if returned to their home country.
An immigration judge initially denied all three applications, prompting the family to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA adopted and affirmed the immigration judge's decision, citing the precedential case *Matter of Burbano* from 1994 in its reasoning for dismissal.
The Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction to review the case derives from federal immigration law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), which permits court review of final orders of removal in certain circumstances. Because the BIA had adopted the immigration judge's decision rather than conducting an independent analysis, the appeals court reviewed both the original immigration court ruling and the BIA's affirmance.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi was named as the respondent in the case, representing the federal government's position in defending the immigration authorities' decision to deny relief to the Colombian family.
The court's decision to grant the petition "in part" indicates that while the family achieved some measure of success, not all of their arguments prevailed. The remand for further proceedings means the case will return to lower immigration authorities for additional consideration, potentially giving the family another opportunity to present their claims for protection.
Judge Friedland's mixed opinion - both concurring with and dissenting from parts of the majority's reasoning - highlights the complexity of the legal issues involved. Partial concurrences and dissents often occur when judges agree with the ultimate outcome but disagree with the legal reasoning, or when they support some aspects of a decision while opposing others.
The case reflects ongoing challenges faced by asylum seekers in the federal immigration system. Applicants must meet specific legal standards to qualify for protection, and appeals from negative decisions can take years to resolve as cases move through the administrative and federal court systems.
The involvement of a visiting district judge sitting by designation is common in federal appeals courts when additional judicial resources are needed. District judges frequently sit with circuit judges to help manage caseloads and bring different perspectives to panel decisions.
The decision was marked "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," indicating it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases beyond the specific circumstances outlined in Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This designation is typical for many immigration appeals, though the rulings still have significant consequences for the parties involved.
The remand order means the Colombian family's case will continue in the immigration system, where they will have another opportunity to present evidence supporting their claims for protection. The specific issues that led to the partial grant and remand will likely become clearer when the full opinion is released or when proceedings resume before immigration authorities.
For the Riveros Leon family, the Ninth Circuit's decision represents a partial victory in their ongoing effort to remain in the United States and avoid removal to Colombia, though significant legal hurdles may remain as their case returns to the immigration system for further review.