The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a petition for asylum from a Guatemalan family, impacting their hopes for safety in the United States. The court ruled on November 9, 2026, in the case of Hernandez-Caal v. Blanche (No. 25-6995), stating that the evidence presented did not sufficiently support their claims of persecution and torture.

The petitioners, Emma Esparanza Hernandez-Caal, her daughter Sonia Fabiola Vasquez-Hernandez, and her granddaughter E.I.G-E., sought asylum after fleeing Guatemala. Their case highlights the challenges many face when navigating the U.S. immigration system, especially those claiming protection from violence and persecution.

The family argued that they were at risk of harm due to their gender and past experiences of violence in Guatemala. However, the court found that their claims did not meet the legal standards required for asylum, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution based on specific grounds such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

The dispute began when the family applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Their application was denied by an immigration judge (IJ), and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld that decision. The family then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a review of the BIA's ruling.

The court's review focused primarily on Hernandez-Caal's proposed particular social group (PSG) of "Guatemalan women and girls." However, the court noted that Hernandez-Caal forfeited any challenge to the BIA's determination that this PSG was not cognizable. The BIA had already addressed this issue, and Hernandez-Caal's opening brief did not contest it, leading the court to decline to consider her belated argument.

The court stated, "Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection to Hernandez-Caal." It emphasized that an applicant must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that they would be tortured if removed and that such torture would occur with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. The court found that Hernandez-Caal did not meet this burden.

The BIA acknowledged Hernandez-Caal's past experiences, including rape, but also noted that she had lived in Guatemala for several years without further harm. The court pointed out that there was no presumption of future torture under CAT, and the BIA found no clear probability of future torture based on several factors. These included the absence of continued threats from an individual named Moises, the lack of harm to family members who remained in Guatemala, and the possibility of relocation to avoid potential threats.

The court also noted that Hernandez-Caal had previously lived in Guatemala without issues for several months after her son’s murder and her rape, which undermined her claims of imminent danger. The BIA had considered the risks associated with Moises's affiliation with a gang but ultimately concluded that the evidence did not support a likelihood of future harm.

The ruling has significant implications for the petitioners and others in similar situations. It underscores the stringent requirements for asylum seekers in the U.S. immigration system, particularly regarding the need for compelling evidence of future persecution. This decision may deter other potential asylum seekers from pursuing similar claims, fearing that their experiences may not meet the necessary legal thresholds.

The court's decision also reflects ongoing challenges within the U.S. immigration system, where many individuals and families are seeking refuge from violence and persecution in their home countries. The ruling may influence how future cases are evaluated, particularly those involving claims of gender-based violence.

Looking ahead, the Hernandez-Caal family has limited options for appeal. The Ninth Circuit's decision is final, and while they could potentially seek other forms of relief, such as humanitarian parole or different immigration statuses, the path forward remains uncertain. There are no related cases pending that could directly impact their situation.