The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an asylum petition from Maria Filomena Martinez Cartagena and her minor child, both citizens of El Salvador. The court's ruling on October 28, 2026, affects their immigration status and highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking refuge in the United States due to gang violence and threats in their home countries.

The case, docketed as 21-70503, stems from a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed Cartagena's appeal against an order from an Immigration Judge (IJ). The IJ had previously denied Cartagena's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The ruling is significant as it underscores the stringent requirements for asylum seekers to establish a credible fear of persecution linked to specific social groups.

Background

Maria Filomena Martinez Cartagena and her child are originally from El Salvador, a country plagued by gang violence and extortion. Cartagena sought asylum in the United States, claiming that she and her family faced threats from gang members. The BIA's decision came after an IJ evaluated her case and found that she did not meet the necessary criteria for asylum or other forms of protection.

The BIA's dismissal of Cartagena's appeal was based on the IJ's determination that she failed to establish a clear link between the threats she faced and her membership in a particular social group. Specifically, Cartagena argued that she belonged to the group of "Salvadoran women who have suffered threats and extortion by the gangs." However, the IJ concluded that the threats were motivated solely by the gang's desire for money, not by Cartagena's gender or social status.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision and upheld the lower court's ruling. The court emphasized that substantial evidence supported the Agency's denial of Cartagena's asylum and withholding of removal claims. The judges noted, "Cartagena fails to point to evidence in the record that compels reversal of the Agency’s determination that she failed to establish a nexus between any past harm or future fear of harm and her proposed particular social group."

Furthermore, the court highlighted that Cartagena conceded on appeal that the gang members' threats were primarily about demanding money from her partner. This concession weakened her argument for asylum, as the court referenced a previous ruling stating, "an applicant’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground." The judges also noted that Cartagena did not adequately challenge the BIA's determination regarding CAT protection, leading to a forfeiture of that issue.

Impact

The court's decision has significant implications for Cartagena and her child, as it effectively ends their pursuit of asylum in the United States. This ruling serves as a reminder of the high bar set for asylum seekers, particularly those claiming persecution based on gang violence. The court's reliance on established precedents indicates that similar cases may face challenges in proving a direct connection between threats and protected social groups.

As the United States continues to grapple with immigration issues, this case illustrates the complexities involved in asylum applications, especially for individuals from countries with pervasive gang violence. The ruling may also influence future cases where applicants cite gang-related threats as a basis for asylum, as it reinforces the notion that economic motives alone do not qualify for protection under U.S. immigration law.

What's Next

Cartagena and her child have limited options following this ruling. They may seek to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is uncertain whether the Court will take up the case. There are no related cases pending that directly connect to Cartagena's situation at this time. The court filing did not provide further details on any potential next steps for Cartagena.