Friday, May 22, 2026
Page 3
Ninth Circuit Dissenter Balks at Deporting Woman Who Was Raped in El Salvador
Majority Sees Lack of Nexus Between Membership in ‘Particular Social Group’—Women in Central America—and Harm That Befell Petitioner as Crime Victim
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected, over a partial dissent, the contention by a woman that she should not be deported to El Salvador because of gender-based abuse she has experienced there, including being raped and kidnapped, and might be apt to suffer if returned.
In a memorandum opinion, filed Wednesday, Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Lawrence VanDyke denied review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) which upheld a ruling by an immigration judge (“IJ”) that Fatima Guadalupe Monjaras-Segovia must be returned to her native land. Rawlinson and VanDyke found no basis for the withholding of removal or the granting of asylum.
On appeal, Monjaras-Segovia dropped the claim she had earlier made of protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Her daughter, Katya Noemy Gomez-Monjaras, also petitioned for review of the BIA’s determination.
Mendoza’s View
Circuit Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr. saw possible merit in Monjaras-Segovia’s call for withholding of removal on the ground of having been victimized in El Salvator based on being a woman. He declared:
“Because the record compels the conclusion that Petitioner’s gender was at least part of the reason she was persecuted, I would grant the petition in part and remand to the BIA to reconsider the remainder of her withholding of removal arguments.”
The judge said in a footnote:
“Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial solely on the ground that Petitioner did not demonstrate a nexus between her proposed gender-based particular social groups and the persecution she experienced. I do not address the other requirements for withholding of removal.”
Holding of Majority
The majority held:
“Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Petitioner failed to establish the required nexus between her proposed particular social groups (‘PSGs’)—‘Salvadoran women’ and ‘Central American women who are viewed as property’—and the harm she experienced and feared from two men, Ramiro Lemus…and Moise Gomez Contreras….Substantial evidence in the record supports that both Ramiro and Moise abused Petitioner for personal, sexual reasons and not because of Petitioner’s membership in her proposed PSGs….A reasonable adjudicator could therefore conclude that Petitioner failed to establish the required nexus between her past abuse and her proposed PSGs.”
The judges added:
“Evidence that El Salvador’s government poorly enforces laws against domestic violence and rape does not compel a conclusion contrary to the agency’s, because such generalized evidence is not relevant to Ramiro’s or Moise’s specific reasons for harming Petitioner….Without establishing a nexus between her alleged persecution and proposed PSGs. Petitioner is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal.”
Not Usual Case
Mendoza countered in his partial dissent (in which he agreed that asylum was not available):
“Substantial evidence review normally requires us to hold our noses when confronted with immigration decisions that casually dispose of survivors’ gender- based violence claims on these grounds. So long as the record does not compel a contrary conclusion, the agency’s decision must be upheld….But this is not one of those cases.”
He explained:
“Why? Because one of the perpetrators was clear about his motives for targeting Petitioner. Moise explicitly referenced Petitioner’s gender in multiple instances when persecuting her.”
The jurist, who was appointed to the Ninth Circuit in 2022, pointed to the petitioner’s testimony that after Moise raped her, he “said that I now belong to him, that I was his woman” and words to like effect. Mendoza commented:
“Petitioner’s testimony is supported by country conditions evidence that details the ‘endemic’ levels of rape and violence against Salvadoran women. This compels the conclusion that Petitioner was targeted at least in part because of her membership in her gender-based particular social groups.”
The case is Monjaras-Segovia v. Blanche, 25-5213.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company