The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Irma Rosenda Mateo Mateo and her minor daughter, Johana Lisbeth Lopez Mateo, in their appeal for asylum and other forms of protection from deportation. The court's decision, filed on November 2, 2026, means that the family, originally from Guatemala, will not receive the protections they sought from the U.S. immigration system. This ruling is significant as it affects the family's future in the United States and highlights the challenges faced by many seeking asylum.

The case stemmed from a petition for review of a decision made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which had dismissed the family's appeal regarding their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court's ruling emphasizes the stringent requirements for asylum seekers and the importance of demonstrating a credible fear of persecution.

Background

Irma Rosenda Mateo Mateo and her daughter are natives and citizens of Guatemala. They sought asylum in the United States, claiming they faced persecution due to their membership in a particular social group. Their case was initially reviewed by an Immigration Judge (IJ), who denied their application, leading to an appeal to the BIA. The BIA upheld the IJ's decision, prompting the family to take their case to the Ninth Circuit.

The dispute centers on whether Mateo and her daughter could establish a credible fear of persecution if they were returned to Guatemala. The IJ found that Mateo did not demonstrate past harm or a fear of future harm based on her social group membership, which is a critical requirement for asylum claims. The family argued that the IJ's decision was flawed and that they should be granted protection, but the BIA and subsequently the Ninth Circuit disagreed.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit ruled to deny the family's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision. The court stated, "Even assuming the respondent is credible, it would affirm the Immigration Judge’s alternative findings that she has not demonstrated past harm or a fear of future harm on account of her membership in a cognizable particular social group or eligibility for CAT protection on the merits of her claim." This highlights the court's focus on the evidence presented and the burden placed on applicants for asylum.

Furthermore, the court found that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision to deny asylum and withholding of removal. The ruling emphasized that Mateo had not sufficiently challenged the IJ's findings regarding her proposed social group and the nexus between her fear of persecution and her membership in that group. The court noted, "Exhaustion requires a non-constitutional legal claim to the court on appeal to have first been raised in the administrative proceedings below." This indicates the importance of addressing all relevant issues during the initial proceedings.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Mateo and her daughter, as it effectively ends their pursuit of asylum in the United States. It underscores the challenges faced by many immigrants seeking protection based on claims of persecution. The decision also highlights the rigorous standards that applicants must meet to demonstrate a credible fear of harm in their home countries.

The ruling may also set a precedent for future cases involving similar claims, particularly regarding the nexus requirement for asylum seekers. The court's emphasis on the need for substantial evidence and the importance of properly exhausting legal claims could impact how future cases are argued and decided in the Ninth Circuit.

What's Next

Mateo and her daughter may have limited options for appealing the Ninth Circuit's decision. The court's ruling is final unless they can present new evidence or arguments that were not previously considered. There are no related cases pending that could affect their situation directly. As it stands, the family faces the possibility of deportation back to Guatemala.