⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit hears Aliaga-Vela versus Blanche. Aliaga-Vela applied for asylum, saying that criminal gangs had extorted him in Peru. He also sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. At his second scheduling hearing, the government orally asked the immigration judge to reject those applications without a full evidentiary hearing. The judge rejected the applications and ordered his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the ruling, concluding that his allegations did not establish eligibility even if accepted as true. It noted that his lawyer had not identified a particular social group to support the asylum claim. For asylum based on that ground, the group must share a trait its members cannot or should not have to change, have clear boundaries, and be recognized as distinct in their society. Victoria Neilson will ask the court to send the case back, contending that he was denied a meaningful chance to present evidence. The central question is when an immigration judge may reject an application without hearing evidence, and whether this process gave Aliaga-Vela a fair opportunity to make his case.

Aliaga-Vela v. Blanche (No. 25-60509) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026.