The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an asylum petition from a Peruvian family, ruling that they failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of persecution. The case, Cardenas Choque v. Blanche, involves Julio Cardenas Choque, his wife Sara Cruz Vidaurre, and their three daughters, who sought protection from gangs in Peru. This ruling has significant implications for the family and others in similar situations seeking asylum in the United States.

The family argued that they faced threats from a gang known as Tren de Aragua, which demanded money from Cardenas Choque, a former small business owner. However, the court found that their claims did not meet the necessary legal standards for asylum or other forms of relief. This decision highlights the challenges many families face when navigating the complex U.S. immigration system.

Background

Julio Cardenas Choque and his family are natives of Peru, where they experienced threats from the Tren de Aragua gang, which has been linked to extortion and violence. After Cardenas Choque ceased operating his business in 2022, he and his family decided to flee to the United States, fearing for their safety. They filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after arriving in the U.S.

The case eventually reached the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) after an immigration judge (IJ) denied their initial claims. The family argued that they faced persecution due to their social status as business owners and their gender, particularly for Cruz Vidaurre and their daughters, who they claimed would be victims of gender-based violence in Peru.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit ruled on November 6, 2026, affirming the BIA's decision to deny the family's asylum request. The court stated that the family did not adequately challenge the IJ's findings, which included a lack of evidence for past persecution and the cognizability of their proposed social groups. The court noted, "Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cardenas Choque’s proposed PSG of 'Peruvian small business owners who have refused extortion demands levied by Venezuelan gangs' is not cognizable because it is not immutable and lacks particularity."

Furthermore, the court found that the family's fear of persecution did not have a sufficient connection to a protected ground, such as their family membership or gender. The judges emphasized that the evidence presented did not compel a different conclusion, stating, "The lack of a cognizable PSG is dispositive of his asylum and withholding of removal claims." The ruling was made by a panel including Circuit Judges Christen and Miller, along with District Judge Sykes, who was sitting by designation.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for the Cardenas Choque family, as they will not receive asylum or other protections from deportation back to Peru. The decision underscores the difficulties faced by many asylum seekers in proving their claims, especially when it comes to demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution. The court's ruling also illustrates the challenges in establishing cognizable social groups, which are critical for asylum claims.

The case sets a precedent for future asylum seekers who may face similar challenges in proving their claims related to gang violence, gender-based persecution, or other forms of harm. It highlights the necessity for clear and compelling evidence to support claims of persecution, particularly in cases involving social groups that may not meet the legal standards set by immigration law.

What's Next

Following this ruling, the Cardenas Choque family has limited options. They may seek to appeal the decision, but the likelihood of success is uncertain given the court's clear findings. There are no related cases pending that could impact their situation directly. The family now faces the possibility of deportation back to Peru, where they fear for their safety.