“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.
Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, who was nominated by Donald Trump to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote a 2-1 opinion rejecting an application for asylum from El Salvador residents despite strong evidence of gang persecution that the government was unable or unwilling to combat. Judge Roger Gregory, who was nominated to the Fourth Circuit by President George W. Bush, firmly dissented in the February 2025 decision in Molina-Diaz v Bondi.
What happened in this case?
Bryan Alexis Molina-Diaz and his wife Cony fled El Salvador after witnessing the MS-13 gang murder of Cony’s cousin. They sought asylum in the US. They contended that the El Salvador government there was unable or unwilling to control the gang, which threatened them.
Both an immigration judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected the Molina-Diaz application. The family then took the case to the Fourth Circuit.
Why was the decision by Judge Quattlebaum and the Fourth Circuit majority harmful?
Trump Judge Quattlebaum’s 2-1 ruling held that the family failed to meet their burden under immigration law to show that the El Salvador government was unwilling or unable to “control non-state persecutors” like the MS-13 gang. Quattlebaum wrote that “substantial evidence” supported the decision below.
Judge Gregory strongly dissented. He explained that the IJ and BIA had improperly given only “perfunctory treatment” to the “significant, unrebutted evidence that El Salvador is unable to control MS-13.” He went on to criticize the majority because it “twists our prior cases beyond recognition, converting a rule” that immigration authorities “need not consider all evidence in the record into a rule that they need not consider any evidence” as long as they “passingly mention that evidence exists in the ether.”
Gregory described several of the “country conditions” reports submitted by the Molina-Diazes in detail, and noted that one report concluded that if they had to return to El Salvador, they would be “at high risk for substantial physical harm – even murder”, and that the immigration authorities “failed to discuss the substance” of the report. Gregory concluded that the majority’s “rubber stamp” of the “almost nonexistent discussion” of the evidence “flies in the face” of the court’s prior precedents, which make clear that when such contrary evidence exists, immigration authorities must “account for it in a meaningful way” and not “arbitrarily ignore it.” In his view, the ruling should have been reversed.
The opinion by Judge Quattlebaum obviously harms Bryan Alexis and Cony Molina-Diaz, denying them asylum that may literally cost them their lives. The decision also undermines important precedent concerning review of immigration decisions in the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and North and South Carolina. In addition, the case illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.