23-6916
2d Cir.Oct 23, 2024Background
- Gladys Veronica Gomez Bonilla and her two daughters, natives and citizens of Ecuador, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States.
- They argued they faced persecution and risk of torture by Bonilla’s father-in-law, who murdered her father in 2010 and assaulted her in 2021.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, finding insufficient evidence that Ecuadorian authorities were unable or unwilling to protect Bonilla.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, and the petitioners sought review from the Second Circuit.
- Bonilla alleged that State Department reports showed general government inability to protect women from violence in Ecuador, which the IJ allegedly ignored.
- The Second Circuit reviewed both the IJ and BIA decisions and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ecuadorian government is unable or unwilling to protect Bonilla from her father-in-law | Government was ineffective in protecting her from violence | Authorities responded properly to reported incidents | No error in finding authorities were responsive and willing |
| Whether IJ ignored evidence of Ecuador’s inability to protect women | IJ ignored State Department reports on violence against women | IJ considered all evidence; reports did not show inability | IJ presumed to have considered evidence; reports not specific |
| Entitlement to CAT relief due to risk of torture by father-in-law | Faced likely torture with government acquiescence | Failed to show government would acquiesce in torture | Challenge to acquiescence abandoned; no basis for CAT relief |
| Sufficiency of reporting violence to police | Police ignored her reports of 2021 assault | She did not report incident to police, only her attorney | Testimony did not establish government inaction or inability |
Key Cases Cited
- Pan v. Holder, 777 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA decisions)
- Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106 (2d Cir. 2021) (explaining the 'unable or unwilling to protect' standard)
- Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) (two-step framework for CAT claims)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption IJ considered all evidence)