The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the asylum petition of Ana Hermelinda Perez-Isidro and her two minor children, T.E.R.-P. and R.A.R.-P., who are natives of El Salvador. The court ruled on October 26, 2026, that the family did not provide enough evidence to support their claims of persecution. This decision affects the family’s ability to remain in the United States and highlights the challenges many face when seeking asylum.

Perez-Isidro and her children sought protection in the U.S. after claiming they were threatened by gang members in El Salvador. Their case was reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) who denied their asylum request. The Ninth Circuit's ruling means that the family must now confront the possibility of deportation back to a country they fear.

Background

Ana Hermelinda Perez-Isidro, along with her children, filed for asylum in the United States after fleeing their home country of El Salvador. They claimed that gang members threatened them due to financial extortion. The family argued that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to protect them from these threats. Their case was initially heard by an Immigration Judge, who ruled against them, stating that they did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution.

Following the IJ's decision, Perez-Isidro and her children appealed to the BIA. However, the BIA dismissed their appeal, agreeing with the IJ's findings. This dismissal led the family to seek further review from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over immigration cases under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously to deny the family’s petition for review. The court found that the evidence presented did not compel a conclusion that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control the gang members who threatened Perez-Isidro. The judges noted, “The record does not compel the conclusion that the Salvadoran government was unwilling or unable to control Perez’s feared persecutors.”

The court also highlighted that Perez-Isidro failed to establish a direct link between her past harm and a proposed particular social group (PSG). The judges stated, “Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Perez did not establish any nexus between her past harm and proposed PSG, she fails to establish past persecution for both asylum and withholding.” This ruling reinforces the requirement for asylum seekers to provide clear evidence of persecution based on specific grounds.

Impact

The Ninth Circuit's decision has significant implications for Perez-Isidro and her children, as it effectively ends their pursuit of asylum in the United States. The ruling underscores the high burden of proof required for asylum seekers to demonstrate that they face persecution in their home countries. It also reflects the court's reliance on the factual findings of the BIA and the IJ, which are typically upheld unless compelling evidence suggests otherwise.

This case may resonate with other asylum seekers facing similar challenges. It illustrates the complexities of immigration law and the difficulties many families encounter when trying to escape violence and persecution. The ruling does not set a new precedent but reinforces existing standards for asylum claims within the Ninth Circuit.

What's Next

Following this ruling, Perez-Isidro and her children may face deportation back to El Salvador. They could potentially seek further legal options, but the Ninth Circuit's decision is generally considered final unless there are grounds for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future actions by the family.