Case Explained: Marquez-Cortez, et al. v. Bondi

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-12 The Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Honduran nationals Elzi Marquez-Cortez and her daughter A.V.M., upholding the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision to deny their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court affirmed that the BIA correctly found the petitioners failed to establish eligibility for relief on multiple grounds. Regarding the “witnesses to crime” particular social groups, the court held that the BIA did not err by finding these groups were not socially distinct. The court clarified that the BIA did not impose an “ocular visibility” requirement but properly considered whether Honduran society perceives individuals who report crimes without public opposition as a distinct group. The record supported the conclusion that while the gang may have perceived the petitioners as witnesses, there was no evidence that the general public in Honduras recognized such individuals as a distinct social group. On the nexus issue for asylum and withholding of removal, the court applied the standard requiring a protected ground to be “at least one central reason” for the persecution. The court found substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that neither sex nor imputed anti-gang political opinion was a central reason for the harm suffered. The petitioners were targeted primarily for financial gain during an initial robbery and subsequently for personal retribution regarding the police report, rather than because of their membership in a particular social group or political opinion. For CAT relief, the court affirmed that the petitioners failed to demonstrate it was “more likely than not” they would be tortured upon return due to governmental acquiescence. The court noted that while there was general evidence of violence against women and corruption in Honduras, the record lacked specific evidence showing government officials had actual knowledge or willful blindness regarding the threats and breached their legal responsibility to intervene. The petitioners’ speculation that police collaborated with gang members was insufficient to meet this burden. Additionally, the court exercised its discretion to enforce administrative exhaustion, declining to consider the petitioners’ argument challenging the BIA’s interpretation of *In re C-T-L-* because they failed to raise this specific legal issue before the BIA. As a result of the denial, the petitioners remain subject to removal to Honduras. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.