“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case
El Salvador citizen sought relief from deportation due to violation of Convention Against Torture (CAT)
What happened in this case?
Nectah Ulises Romero Romero is an El Salvador citizen who sought refuge in the US due to the risk of harm posed by anti-gang vigilantes, government officials, and gangs in that country. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) turned down his appeal. He then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review.
Trump Judge Daniel Bress and Reagan Judge Danny Boggs issued a 2-1 ruling against Romero in December 2025. Biden Judge Salvador Mendoza dissented. The case was Romero v Bondi.
How did Trump judge Bress and Reagan judge Boggs rule?
Judges Bress and Boggs found “substantial evidence” to support the IJ and BIA rulings. They agreed that the record “does not compel the conclusion” that Romero is “likely to face torture from police or private actors,”so there was no proper basis to reverse the decision below.
What did Judge Mendoza say in dissent?
Judge Mendoza firmly dissented. Contrary to the majority, he wrote that the IJ and the BIA did not conduct an initial assessment of the “threat of torture from vigilante groups,” so that it was “unclear” whether there was a significant “aggregate risk of torture” from all groups. Mendoza also noted that the record “shows sustained corruption and collusion between gangs and the government within El Salvador,” showing government “acquiescence” in torturous conduct.
Why is the result harmful?
Trump judge Bress’ deciding vote obviously made it impossible for Romero to get relief from deportation due to torture, and set a troublesome precedent on that issue in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Arizona,Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.