Eva Alvizures-Ramirez v. Pamela Bondi, 24-1259

Petitioners Eva and Jenny Alvizures-Ramirez, sisters from Guatemala, entered the U.S. unlawfully and applied for asylum and withholding of removal citing fear of their cousin, Edras, who allegedly raped another sister and threatened them.
They claimed past persecution based on membership in a purported social group: "single Guatemalan women without male protection."
Key supporting evidence included unsworn statements, some family corroboration, and country reports detailing gender-based violence and state responses in Guatemala.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, finding (1) alleged harm did not rise to the level of persecution, (2) their proposed social group was not cognizable, and (3) they failed to show the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to protect them.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed principally on the ground that they failed to show harm was on account of a protected group and agreed with the IJ on failure to establish government inability/unwillingness to protect.
On petition for review, the Eighth Circuit denied relief, emphasizing that the petitioners did not challenge the dispositive IJ/BIA finding that the government was not shown to be unable or unwilling to protect them.

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Cognizability of PSG	"Single Guatemalan women without male protection" is a valid social group subject to persecution	Group not cognizable: lacks immutability, particularity, and social distinction	Group not cognizable
Level of Harm	Threats and attempts constituted persecution	No physical assault, threats brief and unfulfilled	Harm did not rise to level of persecution
Govt. Protection	Guatemalan authorities unlikely to provide protection	Petitioners did not seek help; govt. has mechanisms in place	No showing govt. unable or unwilling
Nexus to PSG	Harm was on account of PSG membership	Insufficient evidence tying harm to PSG membership	No nexus established

Quinteros v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2013) (Asylum seekers subject to persecution by private actors must show government inability/unwillingness to protect)
Matul-Hernandez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2012) (Persecution by private actors requires governmental inability or unwillingness to control)
Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2004) (Failure to raise a dispositive issue waives it in review)