In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the asylum case of Saul Cano Sanchez, a native of Mexico. The court's decision has significant implications for Sanchez's quest for protection from persecution. This ruling is crucial as it highlights the complexities of asylum claims and the standards that must be met for individuals seeking refuge in the United States.

Saul Cano Sanchez, the petitioner in this case, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after experiencing violence and threats from the Knights Templar cartel in Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had previously dismissed his appeal, leading Sanchez to petition the Ninth Circuit for review. The case was filed under docket number 16-71520 on November 2, 2026.

The dispute centers around whether Sanchez suffered persecution in Mexico due to his family membership, and whether the BIA correctly applied the legal standards required for asylum and withholding of removal. The case reached the Ninth Circuit after Sanchez's initial claims were denied by an Immigration Judge (IJ) and subsequently upheld by the BIA.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling granted Sanchez's petition in part and denied it in part. The court found that substantial evidence did not support the BIA's conclusions regarding Sanchez's past harm not rising to the level of persecution. The court stated, "The record compels the conclusion that Cano Sanchez suffered past persecution when he was kidnapped and beaten by the Knights Templar cartel." The judges emphasized that the violence Sanchez faced was indeed persecution and was connected to his family membership, which is recognized as a protected ground for asylum claims.

The court also noted that the BIA failed to address whether the persecution was committed by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control. This oversight necessitated a remand to the BIA to consider this critical aspect of Sanchez's asylum claim. The judges explained, "Because the BIA did not address whether the persecution was committed by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control, the agency should consider this element of Cano Sanchez’s asylum claim on remand."

Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit identified a legal error made by the BIA regarding the differing standards for asylum and withholding of removal claims. The court clarified that asylum applicants must demonstrate that persecution was "on account of" a protected ground, while those seeking withholding of removal must show that their life or freedom would be threatened "because of" a protected characteristic. The BIA's failure to apply these distinct standards warranted a remand for further consideration.

In addition to the asylum claim, the court evaluated Sanchez's CAT claim. The judges found that substantial evidence supported Sanchez's assertion that he would likely be tortured if returned to Mexico. The court stated, "The record compels the conclusion that Cano Sanchez experienced past torture." This aspect of the ruling underscores the serious risks faced by individuals returning to countries with known human rights abuses.

On the issue of due process, the court ruled that the IJ did not violate Sanchez's rights by failing to provide adequate advisals regarding his right to counsel. The judges noted that Sanchez had waived his right to counsel multiple times and did not request additional time to secure legal representation. Thus, the court denied the petition concerning the due process claim.

This ruling has significant implications for Sanchez and others in similar situations. By granting part of the petition, the Ninth Circuit has opened the door for a renewed examination of Sanchez's asylum claim, particularly regarding the government's ability to control the Knights Templar cartel and the standards for proving persecution. It also reinforces the importance of recognizing family membership as a valid basis for asylum claims.

The decision may set a precedent for future asylum cases, particularly those involving claims of persecution based on family ties. It emphasizes the need for immigration authorities to apply the correct legal standards and to consider the full context of an applicant's experiences.

Looking ahead, the BIA will need to reassess Sanchez's case in light of the Ninth Circuit's findings. The agency will consider whether Sanchez's fear of persecution is well-founded and if he can safely relocate within Mexico. As for the possibility of an appeal, the BIA's decision on remand could potentially be challenged again in the Ninth Circuit if either party is dissatisfied with the outcome.