The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against Angel Torres Palominos, a Mexican national, in his petition for asylum and other forms of relief from removal. The court's decision, filed on October 28, 2026, affects Palominos, who sought protection from deportation to Mexico due to fears for his safety. The ruling underscores the challenges faced by individuals seeking asylum in the United States, particularly those who do not meet specific legal criteria.

Palominos applied for asylum after entering the United States but did so more than a year after his arrival, which is a critical factor in asylum cases. The court found that his application was time-barred, meaning he did not file within the required timeframe. This ruling is significant as it highlights the strict deadlines imposed on asylum seekers and the importance of timely applications in immigration law.

Background

Angel Torres Palominos is a native and citizen of Mexico who sought asylum in the United States. His case stemmed from an order of removal issued by an Immigration Judge (IJ) after Palominos applied for asylum over a year after entering the country. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal, leading him to petition the Ninth Circuit for review. The case was filed under docket number 23-33.

The dispute centered around whether Palominos qualified for asylum based on claims of increased violence in Mexico and threats to his safety. He argued that circumstances had changed in Mexico, which should have allowed him to file his asylum application late. However, the IJ found that his claims did not meet the legal requirements for a late filing, leading to the dismissal of his appeal by the BIA.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit ruled against Palominos, affirming the BIA's decision to deny his asylum application. The court stated, "Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Petitioner’s application for asylum was time barred." The judges emphasized that Palominos did not demonstrate a significant change in circumstances that would excuse his late filing.

Furthermore, the court addressed Palominos' claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The judges noted that he failed to show that his life or freedom would be threatened upon returning to Mexico. The court concluded, "Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal because he did not demonstrate the likelihood of persecution based on a protected characteristic."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking asylum in the United States. It reinforces the importance of adhering to the one-year filing deadline for asylum applications, which is a strict requirement under U.S. immigration law. The decision also clarifies the standards for demonstrating changed circumstances that would allow for late applications, making it clear that mere assertions of fear or worsening conditions are insufficient without substantial evidence.

Palominos' case serves as a reminder of the challenges many immigrants face when navigating the complex U.S. immigration system. The court's ruling may deter others from pursuing similar claims if they do not meet the stringent requirements set forth by immigration law. As such, this decision could influence future asylum seekers and their legal strategies in the Ninth Circuit and beyond.

What's Next

Palominos' options for appeal are limited, as the Ninth Circuit's decision is typically the final word in such cases unless there are extraordinary circumstances. There is no indication in the court filing of any related cases pending that might affect this ruling. As it stands, Palominos will likely face removal to Mexico unless he can present new evidence or legal arguments that warrant a different outcome.