Menjibar Coto: A Women-in-Honduras Remand Under Perdomo

The Ninth Circuit required another agency look at a proposed group of women in Honduras, while leaving other adverse findings intact. In Menjibar Coto v. Blanche, No. 25-6322 (9th Cir. Oct. 16, 2026), a panel held that binding circuit precedent foreclosed the agency’s categorical rejection of that group as too broad. The resulting remand was not an award of asylum or a ruling that every group defined by sex and nationality is legally sufficient.

The decision is a nonprecedential memorandum under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Its importance is the distinction between the panel’s application of existing precedent, the remaining proof questions and a separate concurrence asking the court to reconsider that precedent.

The record and the questions on review

Brenda Julissa Menjibar Coto and her daughter sought review after the Board affirmed the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protection. Each submitted a separate application relying on the mother’s factual account; the daughter also was a derivative beneficiary. The court reviewed the agency decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

The memorandum describes a gang member’s single vague threat at a soccer field. On this record, the panel found substantial evidence supporting the agency’s conclusion that the incident did not rise to past persecution. The record also did not compel a finding that gang members maintained an interest in Menjibar Coto after she left Honduras. An incident involving her brother concerned a personal dispute unrelated to her. See majority pages 2–3.

Those conclusions mattered because the court upheld the denial of a presumption of a well-founded fear based on past persecution. The remand arose from a different route to the future-persecution question, rather than a reversal of those factual findings.

The categorical social-group rejection could not stand

The agency rejected “Women in Honduras” as categorically too broad. On page 3, the majority held that Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 667–669 (9th Cir. 2010), foreclosed that conclusion. It vacated the Board’s pattern-or-practice holding and remanded for further agency consideration of that issue.

The scope is precise. The panel required consideration under governing circuit law; it did not find a proven pattern or practice of persecution, conclusively recognize the proposed group on the full record, or resolve every asylum requirement in the petitioners’ favor. A reader should not convert a remand identifying a legal shortcut into a final finding of eligibility.

The concurrence criticized the rule but followed it

Judge Bress, joined by Judge Bybee, concurred in the result while urging en banc reconsideration of Perdomo. The concurrence acknowledged that the precedent remained binding and that categorical dismissal required remand. See concurrence pages 1–3 and 7–8.

It discussed later particular-social-group doctrine and the Board’s Matter of K-E-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 145 (BIA 2025), while arguing that groups defined only by sex and nationality generally are too broad. That criticism did not itself overrule Perdomo. Nor should the concurrence’s preferred outcome be presented as the panel’s disposition. Lawyers assessing a similar record must distinguish controlling circuit authority, agency precedent and a judge’s proposal to change the law.

Withholding and CAT had separate outcomes

The Board deemed the withholding claim waived because Menjibar Coto did not meaningfully challenge the immigration judge’s denial in her Board appeal. The panel did not address that unexhausted claim. See majority page 3. Preserving one asylum theory therefore did not restore every form of protection.

The panel also upheld the CAT determination. It found that the record did not compel a particularized likelihood of torture involving government action or acquiescence. The agency could conclude that the evidence did not establish that local Honduran authorities likely would torture Menjibar Coto or consent or acquiesce to gang crime. See majority page 4. The asylum remand did not reverse that separate finding.

What the decision changes in a case review

A careful review starts by identifying the agency’s exact reason for rejecting a proposed social group. A categorical legal objection, missing record evidence and failure to prove an individual risk are different issues. Counsel then should trace which issues were presented to the Board and which claims remain open after the court’s mandate.

The panel denied the petition in part, granted it in part and remanded. Its order granted a stay of removal until issuance of the mandate; the memorandum alone does not establish the later mandate date or anyone’s present custody status. For related distinctions among forms of protection, see our asylum, withholding and CAT guide. Our immigration defense page explains how record review fits into representation.