The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture to Wendy Canales-Alvarez, a native and citizen of El Salvador.

The February 2, 2026 ruling in *Canales-Alvarez v. Bondi* represents a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding an immigration judge's denial of multiple forms of relief. The case was heard before Circuit Judges Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, with the court issuing a per curiam opinion.

Canales-Alvarez sought protection based on claims that she was and would be persecuted by her ex-partner on account of her membership in a particular social group. She proposed three distinct particular social groups in support of her asylum and withholding of removal claims: "Salvadoran women," "Salvadoran women unable to leave a domestic relationship," and "Salvadoran women seen as property."

The case highlights ongoing challenges faced by women from Central America seeking protection in U.S. immigration courts based on domestic violence and gender-based persecution claims. Courts have historically struggled with how to evaluate particular social group claims, especially those involving domestic violence situations and gender-based persecution in countries where such violence is widespread.

The Fifth Circuit's review follows established precedent for immigration appeals. As the court noted, it reviews the BIA's decision directly and considers the immigration judge's decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA's ruling. This standard, established in *Orellana-Monson v. Holder*, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012), governs how federal appeals courts examine immigration decisions.

The case was filed against U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who recently assumed the role following the change in administration. Immigration cases typically name the Attorney General as the respondent, as the Attorney General oversees the Department of Homeland Security and immigration enforcement agencies.

Asylum law requires petitioners to demonstrate that they face persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Establishing a valid particular social group has proven challenging in many cases, particularly those involving domestic violence. Courts must determine whether proposed groups meet specific legal criteria, including whether the group is defined by immutable characteristics, has particularity, and is socially distinct.

The Convention Against Torture protection, also sought by Canales-Alvarez, provides relief for individuals who can demonstrate they would more likely than not be tortured if returned to their home country. This standard differs from asylum in that it does not require showing persecution on account of a protected ground, but it requires a higher likelihood of harm.

Withholding of removal, the third form of relief sought, provides protection similar to asylum but with a higher standard of proof. While asylum requires showing a well-founded fear of persecution, withholding of removal requires demonstrating that persecution is more likely than not to occur upon return.

The Fifth Circuit's decision reflects the ongoing challenges faced by Central American women seeking protection in U.S. courts. El Salvador has experienced high levels of domestic violence and gender-based violence, leading many women to flee to the United States seeking safety.

Immigration attorneys have long argued that domestic violence survivors from Central America face particular challenges in establishing valid particular social group claims. The proposed groups in this case - "Salvadoran women," "Salvadoran women unable to leave a domestic relationship," and "Salvadoran women seen as property" - reflect common formulations used in such cases.

The court's opinion was designated as not for publication under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, meaning it will have limited precedential value. Such summary dispositions are common in immigration cases where the court applies established law to specific factual circumstances.

The case number 25-60385 was filed as a petition for review of BIA decision in Agency No. A205 881 170. The case was heard on the court's summary calendar, typically used for cases that do not require oral argument or extensive briefing.

The decision comes as immigration courts continue to face substantial backlogs and as federal courts grapple with complex questions about the scope of asylum protection. The outcome affects not only Canales-Alvarez but also contributes to the broader legal landscape governing asylum claims based on domestic violence and gender-based persecution.

For Canales-Alvarez, the Fifth Circuit's affirmance means her petition for review has been denied, and she faces potential removal to El Salvador unless she pursues other legal options or relief. The decision represents another instance where federal courts have upheld immigration authorities' denial of protection to Central American women claiming persecution based on domestic violence.