The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the immigration appeal of Miguel Carballo-Delcid, a native of Honduras, who sought protection from removal to his home country. The court's decision, filed on November 3, 2026, confirms the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) ruling that Carballo-Delcid did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This ruling is significant as it impacts Carballo-Delcid's future and highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking asylum in the United States.

Carballo-Delcid's case began when he petitioned for review after the BIA dismissed his appeal against an Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision. The IJ had previously denied his applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection. The BIA's decision was based on the lack of evidence linking Carballo-Delcid's fears of persecution to his familial background, which he claimed as a basis for his asylum request.

The parties involved in this case are Miguel Carballo-Delcid, the petitioner, and Todd Blanche, the Attorney General, who represents the government in immigration matters. The case reached the Ninth Circuit after Carballo-Delcid's appeal to the BIA was unsuccessful, leading him to seek judicial review of the BIA's decision.

In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit found that Carballo-Delcid failed to demonstrate a nexus between his feared persecution and his membership in a particular social group, specifically his nuclear family. The court stated, "Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal on the grounds that there was no nexus between petitioner’s familial membership and the feared future persecution." This means that while Carballo-Delcid expressed fears related to the general conditions of violence in Honduras, these fears were not sufficient to qualify for asylum protections.

The court also addressed Carballo-Delcid's claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The ruling emphasized that to qualify for CAT protection, an applicant must show by a preponderance of evidence that they will be tortured upon return to their home country. The court noted, "Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT protection," indicating that Carballo-Delcid did not meet the necessary criteria to prove he would face torture if returned to Honduras.

The impact of this ruling is significant for Carballo-Delcid and others in similar situations. It underscores the stringent requirements for obtaining asylum and the high burden of proof placed on applicants. The court's emphasis on the need for a clear connection between personal circumstances and the threat of persecution reflects the challenges many face in navigating the U.S. immigration system. This decision may also influence future cases involving claims for withholding of removal and CAT protections, as it reiterates the necessity of concrete evidence linking fears of persecution to specific social groups.

Looking ahead, Carballo-Delcid may have limited options for appeal. The Ninth Circuit's ruling effectively upholds the BIA's decision, which makes it difficult for him to challenge the outcome further. However, it is possible for him to seek other forms of relief or reconsideration within the immigration system, though details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or potential appeals.