The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a partial asylum petition for Alexis Rodriguez-Sorto, a Salvadoran man, in a decision filed on November 3, 2026. The court ruled that Rodriguez-Sorto is eligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) but denied his request for withholding of removal. This ruling is significant as it highlights the complexities of asylum claims related to gang violence and government accountability in Central America.

Rodriguez-Sorto's case stems from his experiences in El Salvador, where he faced threats from gang members after resisting their recruitment efforts. The ruling affects not only Rodriguez-Sorto but also sets a precedent for similar cases involving individuals fleeing gang violence in their home countries.

Background

Alexis Rodriguez-Sorto, the petitioner in this case, sought asylum in the United States after facing persecution in El Salvador. He was targeted by gangs for refusing to join them and for not paying extortion fees. The case reached the Ninth Circuit after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal against an immigration judge's (IJ) decision that denied his asylum application and withholding of removal.

The initial decision by the IJ concluded that while Rodriguez-Sorto had indeed suffered persecution, it was not based on a protected ground, such as political opinion. Instead, the IJ determined that the threats he faced were due to his refusal to comply with gang demands. This reasoning was upheld by the BIA, leading Rodriguez-Sorto to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision and determined that it had erred in its assessment of Rodriguez-Sorto's eligibility for CAT protection. The court found that the BIA failed to consider critical evidence regarding government acquiescence to gang violence in El Salvador. The judges noted, “the BIA failed to mention highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence of government acquiescence.”

While the court upheld the BIA's conclusion regarding withholding of removal, it granted the petition for CAT relief, stating that Rodriguez-Sorto had presented sufficient evidence to suggest he would likely face torture if returned to El Salvador. The ruling emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence, particularly in cases involving potential torture by government officials or their acquiescence to such acts.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Rodriguez-Sorto and others in similar situations. By granting CAT protection, the Ninth Circuit acknowledges the realities of gang violence in El Salvador and the potential complicity of local authorities. The decision underscores the need for U.S. immigration courts to carefully evaluate claims of torture and the role of government in such cases.

The ruling may also influence future asylum claims, particularly those involving individuals fleeing gang violence and seeking protection under CAT. It sets a precedent that highlights the necessity for immigration authorities to consider the credibility of testimony regarding local law enforcement's involvement or negligence in protecting citizens from gang-related violence.

What's Next

The case has been remanded to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with the Ninth Circuit's ruling. This means that the BIA will need to reevaluate Rodriguez-Sorto's claim for CAT protection in light of the evidence that was previously overlooked. The possibility of further appeals remains, depending on the outcome of the BIA's reconsideration.