5th Cir.

Reyes-Medina v. Blanche

July 14, 2026 ·25-60542 ·Per Curiam · By Raj Patel

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review filed by a Honduran national seeking asylum and protection against torture. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board of Immigration Appeals' conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove a nexus between his harms and a protected ground.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:06

Background

Angel Yeferson Reyes-Medina, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitioned for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He also alleged violations of his due process rights.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied substantial evidence review to the Board’s factual findings and de novo review to its legal conclusions. It held that the evidence supported the Board’s finding that the petitioner failed to establish the requisite nexus between the harms he suffered and a protected ground, noting that persecution motivated by a personal vendetta does not qualify. Regarding Convention Against Torture relief, the court found the petitioner failed to show government acquiescence. Finally, the court rejected his due process claims regarding the denial of a continuance for counsel and the failure to conduct a competency inquiry because he did not demonstrate the requisite prejudice.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the high bar for asylum seekers to prove that persecution is linked to a protected ground rather than personal motives, and it underscores the necessity of demonstrating specific prejudice to succeed on due process claims in immigration proceedings.