Aguilar-Aldana: Adopted Reasons and an Unchallenged Social-Group Finding Defeated the Petition

A challenge to the wrong BIA procedure did not answer the decision actually issued. In Aguilar-Aldana v. Bondi, No. 20-73522 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026), the court denied a Salvadoran mother and son’s petition after distinguishing adoption of the immigration judge’s reasoning from affirmance without opinion, then addressing briefing forfeiture and CAT.

This is an unpublished memorandum, nonprecedential except as Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 permits.

The Board adopted reasons rather than issuing the procedure challenged

The BIA affirmed for the immigration judge’s stated reasons under Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994). Because it expressed no disagreement with those reasons, the court treated the adopted reasoning as part of the BIA decision and reviewed both.

The petitioners instead attacked the BIA’s summary-affirmance or streamlining procedure under 8 C.F.R. section 1003.1. The court answered that this was not the procedure the BIA had used. It also cited Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849–852 (9th Cir. 2003), rejecting the due process challenge even in cases using summary affirmance. The first task was therefore identifying the actual administrative action. Aguilar-Aldana, memorandum at 2.

An unchallenged social-group finding remained dispositive

The proposed social group was “Salvadoran business owners who have been targeted by gangs due to their perceived economic superiority.” The agency found that it did not satisfy all the requirements for a cognizable particular social group.

The federal opening brief did not meaningfully develop a challenge to that determination. The court applied Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022), and treated review of the finding as forfeited. With no other protected ground established, the unchallenged cognizability determination disposed of asylum and withholding. Aguilar-Aldana at 3.

That is a briefing-based disposition of the agency’s finding. An accurate account should identify the finding left unchallenged and the consequence, rather than portray the memorandum as a fresh evidentiary adjudication of every aspect of that proposed group.

The CAT claim received a separate likelihood review

The court separately addressed whether the record compelled a conclusion that the petitioners were more likely than not to be tortured in El Salvador by or with government acquiescence. It held that the record did not compel that conclusion and denied the CAT challenge.

The memorandum gives that conclusion briefly, citing Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2018). It does not supply a detailed factual narrative of the threatened harm. The result therefore turns on the stated review standard and conclusion, with the underlying agency record necessary for a fuller evaluation. Aguilar-Aldana at 4.

The petition was denied and the temporary stay lifted

The court denied the petition and lifted the temporary stay. The decision illustrates why procedure, preserved arguments and independent grounds must be matched to the actual BIA and immigration judge decisions.

Our separate guide explains reading a short BIA decision for the reasons it adopts. It addresses that focused task, rather than repeat the general process for filing a notice of appeal.