The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dismissed an asylum petition filed by a Salvadoran mother and her daughter, upholding lower court decisions that denied their claims for protection in the United States. The ruling, filed Feb. 2, 2026, represents another setback for Central American asylum seekers navigating increasingly restrictive immigration policies.
Elida De La Paz Gutierrez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, and her daughter Gloria Estefanny Majano-Gutierrez petitioned the Fifth Circuit to review an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals that dismissed their appeal. The BIA had previously upheld an immigration judge's denial of their requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
According to court documents, Gutierrez claimed she faced persecution from her ex-partner based on her membership in a particular social group comprised of women who could not leave an abusive relationship. This type of claim has become increasingly common among Central American women fleeing domestic violence, though U.S. immigration courts have historically been reluctant to recognize domestic violence victims as members of a protected social group eligible for asylum.
The case was heard by a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Davis, Jones, and Ho, who issued an unpublished per curiam opinion. Under Fifth Circuit rules, unpublished opinions are not designated for publication and carry limited precedential value, though they reflect the court's continued approach to asylum cases involving domestic violence claims.
The procedural history shows that Gutierrez first presented her case to an immigration judge, who denied her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. She then appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed her appeal. Following standard appellate procedure, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision directly, considering the immigration judge's ruling only to the extent it influenced the BIA's analysis.
The case comes before the Fifth Circuit under the jurisdiction of Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who was confirmed to lead the Department of Justice. The Attorney General serves as the respondent in immigration appeals, as the department oversees immigration enforcement and removal proceedings through its Executive Office for Immigration Review.
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. Claims based on domestic violence have faced particular scrutiny, as immigration courts must determine whether the circumstances constitute persecution by the government or groups the government is unwilling or unable to control.
For Gutierrez's particular social group claim to succeed, she would need to establish that women unable to leave abusive relationships in El Salvador constitute a cognizable group that is socially distinct and defined with sufficient particularity. Courts have struggled with such claims, often finding them either too broad or lacking the necessary social recognition to qualify for protection.
The Convention Against Torture provides an alternative form of protection for individuals who can demonstrate they would more likely than not face torture if returned to their home country. CAT protection has a higher burden of proof than asylum but does not require showing persecution based on a protected ground.
Withholding of removal, meanwhile, requires demonstrating a clear probability of persecution based on a protected ground - a higher standard than the well-founded fear required for asylum. Unlike asylum, withholding of removal does not provide a path to permanent residence but prevents removal to the specific country where persecution is feared.
The Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, states that have seen significant numbers of Central American asylum seekers in recent years. The court has generally taken a restrictive approach to asylum claims, particularly those involving domestic violence or gang-related persecution.
Statistics from the Executive Office for Immigration Review show that asylum grant rates vary significantly by immigration court and judge, with some courts approving fewer than 10% of cases while others approve more than 80%. The variability has led to calls for greater consistency in asylum adjudication nationwide.
For Gutierrez and her daughter, the Fifth Circuit's dismissal likely exhausts their federal appellate options unless they can identify grounds for a petition to the Supreme Court. Such petitions are rarely granted, particularly in immigration cases that turn on fact-specific determinations rather than broad questions of law.
The case reflects broader challenges facing asylum seekers from Central America, where violence against women remains widespread and government protection often inadequate. Advocacy groups have long argued that current asylum law fails to adequately protect women fleeing gender-based violence, while others contend that expanding protected categories beyond those specified in federal law exceeds judicial authority.
As immigration policy continues evolving under the current administration, cases like *Gutierrez v. Bondi* illustrate the ongoing tension between humanitarian concerns and legal standards governing who qualifies for protection in the United States.