In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the asylum petition of Domingo Ernesto Cornejo-Sanchez, a native of El Salvador. The court upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision that dismissed Cornejo-Sanchez's appeal regarding his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This ruling affects Cornejo-Sanchez, who sought refuge in the United States due to fears of persecution in his home country.

The case, filed under docket number 16-73052, highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking asylum in the United States. The court's decision, issued on November 2, 2026, emphasizes the importance of demonstrating credible evidence of past or future persecution to qualify for asylum.

Background

Domingo Cornejo-Sanchez, originally from El Salvador, sought asylum in the United States after experiencing threatening phone calls that he claimed were linked to his safety. He argued that these threats constituted past persecution and that he faced a well-founded fear of future persecution if he returned to El Salvador.

The case reached the Ninth Circuit after the BIA dismissed Cornejo-Sanchez's appeal from an Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision. The IJ had previously denied his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, stating that Cornejo-Sanchez did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the BIA did not err in denying Cornejo-Sanchez's requests for asylum and withholding of removal. The court found that he failed to establish evidence of past or future persecution. Specifically, the court noted, "Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Cornejo-Sanchez did not establish past or future persecution." The court referenced previous cases, stating, "Unfulfilled threats are very rarely sufficient," indicating that mere threats without accompanying physical harm do not meet the threshold for proving persecution.

Additionally, the court concluded that Cornejo-Sanchez did not show an objectively reasonable probability of persecution if he returned to El Salvador. The ruling pointed out that he lived safely in the country for two years after the threatening calls began, and those calls ceased once he entered the United States in 2014.

Regarding the denial of CAT protection, the court emphasized that Cornejo-Sanchez did not demonstrate that it was more likely than not that he would face torture if returned to El Salvador. The court stated, "Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Cornejo-Sanchez failed to show it was more likely than not that he would face torture." This ruling underscores the necessity for asylum seekers to provide concrete evidence of potential harm to succeed in their claims.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future asylum cases, particularly for individuals who rely on threats as a basis for their claims. The court's decision reinforces the standard that mere threats, without evidence of physical harm or a credible fear of future persecution, are generally insufficient to qualify for asylum.

The case also highlights the importance of demonstrating that a government would acquiesce to torture for CAT protection. Cornejo-Sanchez's inability to prove that Salvadoran officials were aware of the threats or would allow him to be tortured further weakened his case. This ruling may influence how similar cases are evaluated in the future, as it sets a precedent for the level of evidence required to substantiate claims of persecution.

What's Next

Details regarding potential appeals were not available in the court filing. However, as the Ninth Circuit has ruled on the matter, Cornejo-Sanchez may face limited options for further legal recourse unless new evidence emerges. There were no related cases mentioned in the opinion.