The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a petition for review filed by Maria Sarai Cortez Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador who challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision upholding an immigration judge's denial of her asylum application. The case, decided Feb. 4, 2026, represents a setback for immigration advocates who had rallied behind Cortez's cause.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. and Senior Circuit Judges William W. Traxler Jr. and Henry F. Floyd, issued an unpublished per curiam opinion finding no reversible error in the lower court's decision. The court's brief order stated that Cortez had sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture but was denied relief at multiple levels of the immigration system.
According to court documents, Cortez was 21 years old in 2014 when the events that led to her immigration case began. As a native and citizen of El Salvador, she fled her home country and eventually sought protection in the United States through the asylum process. The specific circumstances that prompted her flight from El Salvador were not detailed in the available court filings, which provided only limited background information about her case.
The case attracted significant attention from immigration rights organizations, with eight prominent advocacy groups filing amicus curiae briefs in support of Cortez's petition. The amici supporting the petitioner included the American Immigration Lawyers Association, AMICA Center for Immigrant Rights, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy, Immigration Law Clinics, Just Neighbors, Pisgah Legal Services, and the Tahirih Justice Center.
This coalition of organizations represents some of the most influential voices in immigration law and refugee advocacy. The American Immigration Lawyers Association serves as the national bar association for attorneys practicing immigration law, while organizations like the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies focus on protecting vulnerable populations fleeing persecution. The involvement of these groups suggests the case raised important legal issues that could have broader implications for asylum seekers.
Representing Cortez were attorneys Evelyn R.G. Smallwood and Mary Elizabeth Reed from Hatch Rockers Immigration, a Durham, North Carolina-based firm specializing in immigration law. The government was represented by Acting Assistant Attorney General Yaakov M. Roth, Assistant Director Stephen J. Flynn, and Arthur R. Rabin from the Office of Immigration Litigation within the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The case followed the standard immigration appeals process, beginning with an immigration judge's denial of Cortez's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently upheld that decision, prompting Cortez to file a petition for review with the Fourth Circuit. The appeals court submitted the case for decision on Sept. 22, 2025, and issued its ruling approximately four months later.
The Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction covers federal appeals from Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Immigration cases frequently come before the court given the significant immigrant populations in several of these states, particularly in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and North Carolina's Research Triangle region.
Asylum law requires applicants to demonstrate they suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Withholding of removal provides protection from return to a country where an individual would face persecution, while CAT protection shields people from torture regardless of the persecutor's identity.
The denial represents another challenge for asylum seekers from Central America, who have faced increasingly difficult legal hurdles in recent years. El Salvador, along with Guatemala and Honduras, has been a major source of asylum claims due to widespread violence, including gang activity and domestic abuse.
The court's unpublished opinion means the decision will not serve as binding precedent for future cases in the Fourth Circuit. Unpublished opinions are common in immigration appeals, particularly when courts find no reversible error in lower court decisions.
For Cortez, the Fourth Circuit's denial likely represents the end of her federal court appeals, though she may still have other legal options depending on her specific circumstances. The case underscores the challenges facing asylum seekers navigating the complex U.S. immigration system, even with support from experienced attorneys and advocacy organizations.
The decision comes as immigration policy continues to be a contentious political issue, with Attorney General Pamela Bondi overseeing the Department of Justice's immigration enforcement efforts. The case reflects the ongoing legal battles over who qualifies for protection under U.S. asylum laws and the standards applied by immigration courts in evaluating claims for relief.