Ninth Circuit Denies Asylum for Salvadoran Mother, Daughter

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied asylum to Esmeralda Vanessa Gomez Gomez and her minor daughter, N.R.M.G., both citizens of El Salvador. The court ruled on November 10, 2026, that the petitioners failed to prove they faced persecution based on their membership in a particular social group. This decision affects their ability to remain in the United States and seek protection from potential harm in their home country.

The case originated when Gomez and her daughter sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). They argued that Gomez had suffered abuse from her half-brother and her ex-partner, which they claimed was due to her status as a Salvadoran woman. The BIA dismissed their appeal, leading to the current review by the Ninth Circuit under docket number 25-6321.

In their appeal, Gomez and her daughter contended that the BIA erred in its findings. The BIA had adopted the immigration judge's (IJ) decision, which stated that Gomez did not establish a connection between the harm she suffered and her identity as a Salvadoran woman. The IJ noted that Gomez was abused for reasons unrelated to her gender, including family disputes and her refusal to testify in court.

The Ninth Circuit judges, including Circuit Judges Forrest and Tung, and District Judge Collins, reviewed the case and affirmed the BIA's decision. They found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Gomez's abuse was not connected to her gender. The court stated, "Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that Medina-Gomez abused Gomez for 'disrespecting' and failing to 'obey' their mother and for refusing to testify in court on behalf of Medina-Gomez's son, not because she is a Salvadoran woman."

Additionally, the court addressed Gomez's claim of persecution based on her feminist political opinion. The judges noted that Gomez had only mentioned this opinion in her pre-hearing statement without providing further evidence. The court concluded that any error in not considering this claim was harmless, as the record did not support past persecution based on her feminist views.

The court also evaluated Gomez's claims regarding the Salvadoran government's inability or unwillingness to protect her from domestic violence. The BIA found that the government had taken some action against Gomez's ex-partner, Wilber Manzano-Vargas, who had been detained for three days after his arrest for abuse. The court ruled that this did not demonstrate a failure of protection, stating, "The record does not compel the conclusion that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to protect Gomez from her former partner or from domestic violence generally."

For the CAT claim, the court noted that Gomez needed to prove that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. The judges determined that while Gomez experienced severe harm, it did not meet the legal definition of torture. They cited a previous case, explaining that "even instances of significant physical abuse do not constitute torture."

Finally, the court addressed Gomez's due process claims, which argued that the IJ did not act as an independent arbiter during the hearing. The judges concluded that Gomez failed to show substantial prejudice from any alleged errors made by the IJ. The court stated, "Petitioners’ assertion that the IJ was influenced by the Government’s reservation of appeal rights is speculative."

The court ultimately denied the petition for review, confirming the BIA's decision. This ruling highlights the challenges faced by asylum seekers in proving their claims of persecution and the strict standards required to establish a connection between their experiences and their identities.

The implications of this ruling are significant for Gomez and her daughter, as it means they will not receive asylum in the United States and may face deportation back to El Salvador. This case underscores the complexities of immigration law and the high burden of proof placed on individuals seeking asylum based on claims of persecution.

Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Gomez and her daughter will pursue further legal action or if they can appeal this decision. The court did not specify if there are related cases pending that could impact their situation. However, the ruling sets a precedent for similar cases involving asylum claims based on domestic violence and gender-related persecution.