The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished memorandum decision February 5, 2026, in an immigration case involving a Salvadoran family's petition for review against Attorney General Pamela Bondi. The case, *Hernandez Zepeda v. Bondi*, represents the family's challenge to a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that upheld an Immigration Judge's denial of asylum and related protections.
Maria de Los Angeles Hernandez-Zepeda and her three sons, identified in court records as F.A.M.H., C.H.M.H., and C.A.M.H., are citizens and natives of El Salvador who sought protection in the United States. The family filed claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture after experiencing threats in their home country.
According to the court filing, the family's asylum claims were based on several threatening incidents in El Salvador. Hernandez-Zepeda witnessed a murder, and her son C.A.M.H. received three threatening voicemails. The family also reported experiencing one in-person verbal threat. These incidents formed the basis of their argument that they faced persecution if returned to El Salvador.
The Immigration Judge initially denied all of the family's claims for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently affirmed the Immigration Judge's decision, rejecting the family's arguments for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. This denial prompted the family to petition the Ninth Circuit for review of the agency's decision.
The case was submitted to the Ninth Circuit on January 6, 2026, and heard by a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges NGUYEN and BENNETT, along with Senior District Judge MATSUMOTO from the Eastern District of New York, who sat by designation. The panel determined that the case was suitable for decision without oral argument, as permitted under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The court's jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals decision stems from 8 U.S.C. § 1252, which provides federal appellate courts with authority to review final orders of removal in immigration cases. Under established precedent, the Ninth Circuit reviews the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo, applying the standard set forth in *Flores Molina v. Garland*.
This case represents one of the first immigration appeals to be decided under Attorney General Pamela Bondi's tenure. The Attorney General serves as the named respondent in Board of Immigration Appeals cases when they reach federal appellate review, making Bondi the official respondent in this proceeding.
The memorandum decision was marked as "not for publication," indicating that it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases beyond the specific provisions outlined in Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Unpublished decisions are common in immigration appeals, particularly in cases that apply established legal principles to specific factual circumstances rather than addressing novel questions of law.
Asylum cases involving threats and violence in Central American countries have become increasingly common in federal immigration courts. Applicants must demonstrate that they face persecution based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The persecution must be by the government or groups the government is unwilling or unable to control.
Withholding of removal provides protection similar to asylum but with a higher standard of proof, requiring applicants to show it is more likely than not they would face persecution if returned to their home country. Convention Against Torture protection, meanwhile, prohibits removal to countries where individuals would more likely than not face torture.
The Ninth Circuit's handling of this case follows standard procedures for immigration appeals. The court's decision to proceed without oral argument reflects the routine nature of many immigration petitions for review, where established legal standards are applied to factual determinations made by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The case number 25-1997 indicates this was among the immigration appeals filed early in 2025, suggesting the family's petition for review was submitted relatively quickly after receiving the Board of Immigration Appeals decision. The agency numbers listed in the case caption correspond to the individual immigration proceedings for each family member.
While the full text of the Ninth Circuit's decision was not available in the court filing, the case represents the ongoing flow of immigration appeals that federal appellate courts handle regularly. These cases often involve families seeking protection from violence and threats in their home countries, particularly in Central America where gang violence and other security concerns have driven migration to the United States.
The outcome of this petition for review will determine whether the Hernandez-Zepeda family can remain in the United States or will face removal proceedings back to El Salvador. Immigration appeals can take several months to resolve as courts review the extensive administrative records compiled during immigration court proceedings.