Gomez-Medina v. Barr, 975 F.3d 27

Petitioner Jepsel Enrique Gómez-Medina, a Honduran national, was assaulted multiple times (2012–2014) by men seeking his father, who was allegedly gang‑affiliated; petitioner fled Honduras in Feb 2014 and was later detained in the U.S.
An asylum officer found Gómez‑Medina's fear credible in 2014; he filed for asylum, withholding of removal (WOR), and CAT protection after conceding removability in 2019.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Gómez‑Medina credible and that his mistreatment amounted to persecution, but concluded the government of Honduras was willing and able to protect him (police reports, hospital records, and police intervention during an attack supported this).
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on alternative grounds: it agreed the government protection finding was not clearly erroneous, and (erroneously) questioned the past‑persecution finding while noting Matter of L‑E‑A‑ on family groups.
The First Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and held the dispositive issue was whether Honduras was unwilling/unable to protect Gómez‑Medina; it concluded substantial evidence supported the agency’s protective‑capacity finding and affirmed denial of asylum, WOR, and CAT relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Honduras was unwilling or unable to protect petitioner	Police failed to act effectively: did not record attackers’ names, ignored repeated threats, and country conditions show corruption and impunity	Police did investigate and intervene (police reports, sirens dispersed attackers); country reports do not override petitioner‑specific evidence	Held for respondent: substantial evidence supports finding Honduran authorities were willing/able to protect petitioner
Whether petitioner suffered past persecution	Petitioner asserted beatings and threats rose to persecution	BIA mischaracterized IJ’s finding and questioned the severity	Court found BIA misstated IJ on this point but error was harmless because other dispositive grounds supported denial
Whether petitioner’s family formed a cognizable particular social group	Petitioner argued membership in nuclear family was a protected social group	Government relied on Matter of L‑E‑A‑ and argued nuclear family often not socially distinct	Court did not reach this issue because protection finding was dispositive
Nexus between family membership and persecution	Petitioner argued attacks were to locate/retaliate for his father (family nexus)	Government argued attackers targeted him to find father, not because of family status	Not reached as dispositive protection ruling resolved the case

Mendez‑Rojas v. Johnson, 305 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (W.D. Wash. 2018) (class certification re: timely filing where DHS failed to give one‑year notice)
Villalta‑Martinez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2018) (withholding of removal requires a higher showing than asylum)
Ortiz‑Araniba v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2007) (need to show government acquiescence or inability to investigate/punish)
Harutyunyan v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2005) (local authorities’ immediate response is pivotal to protection analysis)
Hincapie v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2007) (substantial‑evidence standard and agency deference)
Amouri v. Holder, 572 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2009) (country‑condition reports do not necessarily override individualized evidence)
Ramirez‑Perez v. Barr, 934 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2019) (CAT requires more likely than not standard for torture)
INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (agency factfinding reviewed under substantial evidence standard)