The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for review filed by Edwin David Ramos-Hernandez, his wife Sheyly Cristabel Lopez, and their minor daughter D.Z.R.L., who challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The December 22, 2025 decision marks one of the first significant immigration rulings under newly confirmed Attorney General Pamela Bondi's administration.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Rikelman, Lynch, and Howard, unanimously concluded that the agency's ruling was supported by substantial evidence and committed no error of law. Circuit Judge Lynch authored the opinion for the court.
The Guatemalan family entered the United States on September 8, 2021. Six weeks later, on October 20, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security served them with Notices to Appear, charging them with removability under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for entering without proper documentation.
Nearly a year after their arrival, on August 4, 2022, Ramos-Hernandez and Lopez filed applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The applications sought protection under three primary legal frameworks: asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), and protection under the Convention Against Torture pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16.
The Immigration Judge initially heard the family's case and denied their applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently affirmed the Immigration Judge's decision on December 11, 2024. The family then petitioned the First Circuit Court of Appeals for review, challenging both the procedural and substantive aspects of the lower tribunals' rulings.
The case was argued by Kevin P. MacMurray and MacMurray & Associates, who represented the petitioners throughout the appeal process. The government's position was defended by a team from the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division, including Trial Attorney Lindsay Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate, and Assistant Director Stephen J. Flynn from the Office of Immigration Litigation.
The First Circuit's decision comes at a particularly significant time in immigration law enforcement. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who was recently confirmed to lead the Department of Justice, has signaled a shift in immigration policy priorities. This case represents one of the first major immigration appeals to be decided under her tenure, potentially setting the tone for how federal courts will interact with the new administration's approach to asylum and removal proceedings.
The court's analysis focused on whether the Board of Immigration Appeals properly applied existing legal standards in evaluating the family's claims. Immigration law requires applicants to demonstrate persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. For withholding of removal claims, applicants must meet a higher standard, showing it is more likely than not that they would face persecution if returned to their home country.
Protection under the Convention Against Torture requires demonstrating that it is more likely than not that the applicant would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal, and that a public official would be involved in or consent to the torture.
The First Circuit's denial means the family faces removal to Guatemala unless they pursue other legal remedies or relief. Immigration attorneys note that such cases often involve complex factual determinations about country conditions, credibility assessments, and the interpretation of what constitutes persecution under U.S. law.
The decision also reflects the ongoing challenges facing immigration courts, which have faced significant backlogs and procedural delays. The nearly three-year timeline from the family's initial court appearance to the federal appeals court decision illustrates the lengthy process that asylum seekers often navigate through the immigration system.
Legal observers will likely scrutinize future immigration decisions from federal appeals courts to assess whether the new administration's policies influence judicial interpretations of existing immigration law. While federal judges maintain independence from executive branch policy preferences, the Justice Department's litigation strategies and resource allocation decisions can affect how cases are argued and resolved.
The case number 25-1038 will serve as precedent for future First Circuit immigration appeals, particularly those involving similar fact patterns or legal claims. Immigration practitioners in New England states within the First Circuit's jurisdiction will need to consider this ruling when advising clients with comparable circumstances.
The family's legal team has not announced whether they plan to seek further review, such as a petition for rehearing or an appeal to the Supreme Court, though such options face significant procedural hurdles and low success rates in immigration cases.