The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has issued a published opinion in *Bonilla-Espinoza v. Bondi* (10th Cir. 2026), marking one of the first federal immigration cases to feature newly confirmed Attorney General Pamela Bondi as the named respondent. The case, filed January 27, 2026, involves Jorge Alberto Bonilla-Espinoza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, who is challenging an immigration judge's denial of his asylum claim.
The case demonstrates the procedural transition occurring across federal courts as Bondi assumes leadership of the Department of Justice. According to court filings, Bondi became Attorney General on February 5, 2025, and was substituted for former Attorney General Merrick Garland as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), which governs the substitution of parties in ongoing litigation.
Bonilla-Espinoza petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which had previously upheld an immigration judge's denial of his asylum application. The immigration judge also denied withholding of removal, though the complete details of the underlying decision are not immediately available from the court filing.
The case has attracted significant legal attention, as evidenced by the high-profile representation on both sides. Kirkland & Ellis LLP, one of the nation's most prominent law firms, represents Bonilla-Espinoza. Lead counsel Brendan Ryan is working alongside Devika Balaram on the petitioner's briefs. Kirkland & Ellis frequently handles complex immigration matters and constitutional challenges, suggesting the case may involve important legal questions beyond the individual asylum claim.
The Department of Justice's Office of Immigration Litigation is defending the government's position, with Gregory Kelch serving as lead counsel. The DOJ team includes Sarah Pergolizzi, Yaakov Roth, and Leslie McKay on the briefs. The Office of Immigration Litigation handles the government's defense of immigration cases in federal courts nationwide and regularly appears before courts of appeals on asylum and removal matters.
Adding another layer of complexity to the proceedings, the case includes an amicus curiae brief filed by Timothy Adam Golob, Ph.D., who is supporting the petitioner's position. Benjamin Shatz of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP in Los Angeles filed the amicus brief on Golob's behalf. The presence of amicus participation suggests the case may have broader implications for immigration law or policy beyond Bonilla-Espinoza's individual circumstances.
The three-judge panel hearing the case consists of Circuit Judges Harris Hartz, Robert Bacharach, and Allison Eid Carson. Judge Hartz is authoring the opinion, according to the court filing. The Tenth Circuit covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, along with portions of Yellowstone National Park.
The timing of the case is notable as it represents one of the first published immigration decisions to bear Bondi's name as Attorney General. As the nation's chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General serves as the nominal respondent in immigration appeals challenging decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals or immigration judges. The substitution process ensures continuity in federal litigation as administrations change.
Asylum cases like Bonilla-Espinoza's typically involve claims that individuals face persecution in their home countries based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. El Salvador has been a source of significant asylum claims in recent years due to violence from organized criminal groups and other factors affecting citizen safety.
The Board of Immigration Appeals serves as the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying U.S. immigration laws. When the BIA affirms an immigration judge's denial of asylum or other relief, individuals may petition federal courts of appeals for review of legal questions and whether substantial evidence supported the decision.
The Tenth Circuit's decision to publish the opinion indicates the court views the case as establishing important precedent or clarifying significant legal principles. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited in future cases, while unpublished decisions typically address case-specific factual determinations without broader legal significance.
The case number 24-9566 indicates the petition was filed in 2024, meaning the litigation has been pending for over a year as it worked through the appellate process. Immigration appeals often involve complex factual records and legal arguments that require extensive briefing and review by federal judges.
As the case proceeds, it will be closely watched by immigration attorneys and advocates for any guidance it may provide on asylum standards or BIA review procedures. The involvement of prominent counsel and amicus participation suggests the outcome could have implications extending beyond Bonilla-Espinoza's individual claim for protection.