Berta Alicia Ordonez-Cardona and her minor son, both from Guatemala, faced a setback in their quest for asylum in the United States. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against their appeal on October 29, 2026, denying their request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This decision directly impacts their ability to remain in the U.S. and highlights the challenges many immigrants face when seeking protection from persecution.

The court's ruling emphasizes the stringent requirements for asylum seekers, particularly the need to demonstrate a credible fear of persecution linked to a protected ground. Ordonez-Cardona's case illustrates the complexities of immigration law and the high burden of proof required to succeed in such claims.

The case originated when Ordonez-Cardona and her son applied for asylum after encountering issues in Guatemala. They argued that they feared persecution due to Ordonez-Cardona's Mayan Mam ethnicity. However, the immigration judge found their claims insufficient, leading to their appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Background

Berta Alicia Ordonez-Cardona and her son are natives of Guatemala. They sought asylum in the United States, claiming that they faced threats and potential harm upon returning to their home country. Their application was based on Ordonez-Cardona's ethnicity and a dispute with neighbors who were also indigenous Mayan Mam.

The dispute arose over animals that Ordonez-Cardona kept on her property, leading to confrontations with her neighbors. Despite these confrontations, the immigration judge determined that the situation did not constitute persecution linked to a protected ground, which is necessary for asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this decision, prompting Ordonez-Cardona to petition the Ninth Circuit for review.

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case under the standards set by immigration law, specifically looking at the evidence presented and the legal arguments made by Ordonez-Cardona. The court's analysis focused on whether the immigration judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit ruled against Ordonez-Cardona and her son, affirming the immigration judge's decision. The court stated, "Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion" that Ordonez-Cardona did not establish a credible fear of persecution based on her ethnicity. The ruling emphasized that the confrontations with her neighbors were not sufficient to prove that she faced harm due to her membership in a particular social group.

The judges noted that the disputes were more about personal disagreements regarding property than about ethnic persecution. The court also addressed Ordonez-Cardona's claims for relief under the Convention Against Torture, stating, "No evidence in the record shows that Ordonez-Cardona’s dispute with her neighbors had any connection to government officials in Guatemala or that such officials would acquiesce in the torture she fears." This highlights the necessity for asylum seekers to link their fears of harm to government action or complicity.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Ordonez-Cardona and her son, as it effectively ends their legal battle for asylum in the United States. The decision underscores the challenges faced by many immigrants who seek protection from persecution. It illustrates the rigorous standards that applicants must meet to demonstrate a credible fear of persecution linked to their ethnicity or other protected grounds.

The court's decision may also serve as a precedent for future cases involving asylum claims based on similar grounds. It emphasizes the importance of establishing a clear connection between the feared persecution and the applicant's membership in a particular social group. This ruling may deter other potential asylum seekers who face similar circumstances, as it highlights the difficulties in proving their claims.

What's Next

Ordonez-Cardona and her son may have limited options for further legal recourse following this ruling. The court's decision can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is uncertain whether the Supreme Court would choose to hear the case. Currently, there are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling.