9th Circuit denies asylum petition for Salvadoran mother and son, ruling two gang threats were…
Vargas-De Campos v. Blanche
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit denies asylum petition for Salvadoran mother and son, ruling two gang threats were too vague and sporadic to count as persecution.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition of a Salvadoran mother and her son who sought asylum after gang members threatened them twice when the mother resisted efforts to search and question her son. The court found that the two threats, separated by months and never followed up on, did not rise to the level of persecution under immigration law. Because the petitioners failed to qualify for asylum, their related claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture were also denied.
Who it affects
- Her son
- Vague
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 14, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 14, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 14, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Dennise Karina Vargas-De Campos and her son Christopher, citizens of El Salvador, entered the United States after gang members threatened Vargas-De Campos on two separate occasions when she resisted the gang's attempts to search and question her son. They applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge denied all three claims, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal, and they then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review. On the question of past persecution, the court applied the substantial evidence standard, meaning it would only reverse the agency if the record compelled a different conclusion. The court found the two threats were separated by months, lacked specificity, and were never acted upon. Vague or sporadic threats, with no follow-through, rarely constitute persecution under the law, and the record supported the agency's conclusion that the harm did not rise to that level. On the question of a well-founded fear of future persecution, the court found the petitioners failed to show an objectively reasonable possibility of future harm. Vargas-De Campos did not present evidence that the gang retained any continuing interest in her or her son after they left, and general evidence about dangerous country conditions in El Salvador was not sufficient to establish an individualized risk. Speculation about what might happen is not enough under the legal standard. On the Convention Against Torture claim, the court noted that the gang members never physically harmed the petitioners, the two threats did not meet the high threshold required to establish torture, and there was no evidence the gang had pursued them since they left El Salvador. General evidence of government ineffectiveness in combating crime also was not sufficient to show government acquiescence in torture, as required by law. The court issued this ruling as an unpublished memorandum, meaning it does not set binding precedent beyond the specific rule noted in Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. There was no dissent noted in the opinion.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENNISE KARINA VARGAS-DE No. 25-2279 CAMPOS; CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER Agency Nos. CAMPOS-VARGAS, A208-759-078 A208-759-077 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 30, 2026** Before: GOULD, MENDOZA, JR., and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Dennise Karina Vargas-De Campos (“Vargas-De Campos”) and her son Christopher Alexander Campos-Vargas (collectively, “petitioners”) petition for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection for substantial evidence. Garcia- Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition. Petitioners, natives and citizens of El Salvador, entered the United States after gang members threatened Vargas-De Campos on two separate occasions after she resisted their efforts to search and question her son. 1. An applicant for asylum must demonstrate that she suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We review the agency’s conclusion that a given set of undisputed facts does not constitute persecution for substantial evidence. Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. 537, 539 (2026). Past Persecution. The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners’ past harm rises to the level of persecution. We look to all of the surrounding circumstances to determine whether death threats rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028. Here, the gang members’ two threats were separated by months and lacked 2 25-2279 specificity. Moreover, the gang members did not follow up on their threats. Id. (stating that threats alone, particularly vague ones, rarely constitute persecution); Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating that “sporadic incidents, unaccompanied by an ongoing pattern of harm” are less likely to compel the conclusion of harm rising to the level of persecution). On this record, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners’ harm does not rise to the level of past persecution. Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution. Absent evidence of past persecution, petitioners must establish a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing both a subjective fear of future persecution and an objectively “reasonable possibility” of future persecution. Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029. The objective component requires “credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution.” Rusak v. Holder, 734 F.3d 894, 896 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation modified). “Speculation on what could occur is not enough to establish a reasonable fear.” Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2018). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners’ fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable because Vargas-De Campos failed to present evidence that the gang has any continuing interest in her or her son. See Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1065 (upholding agency decision because “there is an insufficient 3 25-2279 basis in the record to conclude that [the perpetrator] and his followers would have a continuing interest” in the petitioner). Moreover, generalized country conditions evidence is insufficient to show “an individualized risk of persecution or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against similarly situated individuals.” Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). We thus deny the petition with respect to petitioners’ claim for asylum. Because petitioners have not established eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows that they have not established eligibility for withholding of removal.1 See Duran- Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029. 2. To establish entitlement to CAT relief, a petitioner must show that it is more likely than not that she will face torture by or with the acquiescence of the government. De Leon v. Garland, 51 F.4th 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2022). Here, the gang members did not physically harm petitioners, and their two threats, separated by months, do not meet the “high threshold for torture.” See Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 706 (9th Cir. 2022). Further, there is no evidence or claim that the gang members have pursued them since leaving El Salvador. See Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (stating that to 1 Because the failure to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution is dispositive of petitioners’ asylum and withholding claims, see Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004), we do not address the remaining issues on appeal. 4 25-2279 demonstrate eligibility for CAT protection, an applicant must establish a “particularized and non-speculative risk” of future torture). Petitioners’ country conditions report likewise does not establish a likelihood of torture or that any torture would be at the acquiescence of the government. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[G]eneral ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”). Substantial evidence thus supports the denial of petitioners’ CAT claim. The petition for review is DENIED.2 2 The temporary stay of removal shall remain in place until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal, Dkt. No. 2, is otherwise denied. 5 25-2279
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.