K. H. v. William P. Barr, 920 F.3d 470

K.H., a Guatemalan Xinca child, was kidnapped, beaten, and raped at age seven by members of a gang; police tracked the ransom calls, located and rescued her, and she was hospitalized.
Several perpetrators were arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison terms (27–72 years); two others were identified but status unclear.
The Guatemalan Trial Court placed K.H. in a child refuge, ordered psychological treatment, directed relocation and police supervision, and recommended she seek a U.S. visa to join her mother.
K.H. fled to the United States while a visa application was pending, was placed in removal proceedings, and applied for asylum and humanitarian asylum alleging persecution on account of race/particular social group.
Parties stipulated that K.H. suffered persecution on a protected ground; the sole disputed element was whether the Guatemalan government was unwilling or unable to control her persecutors and protect her.
The IJ and the BIA found the government’s prompt investigation, prosecutions, convictions, shelter placement, and court-ordered protections showed the government was willing and able to protect K.H.; the Sixth Circuit denied review, finding substantial evidence supported the BIA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether K.H. proved past persecution by showing Guatemala was unwilling or unable to control private persecutors	K.H.: countrywide problems protecting indigenous minors and evidence that relocation and visa advice showed inadequate protection; government response insufficient	Gov.: GNP timely tracked, rescued, prosecuted, and obtained convictions; court-ordered refuge/relocation showed protection	Held: Substantial evidence supports BIA that government response (investigation, prosecution, convictions, court steps) showed willingness/ability; K.H. failed to meet burden
Whether humanitarian asylum was warranted absent past persecution	K.H.: even without past-persecution finding, she faces "other serious harm" upon return and thus merits humanitarian asylum	Gov.: humanitarian asylum is extraordinary relief contingent on showing past persecution; no past persecution here	Held: Denial affirmed; humanitarian asylum relief depends on showing past persecution and BIA did not abuse discretion

Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing BIA and defining persecution analysis)
Hamida v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 734 (6th Cir. 2007) (substantial-evidence review of IJ/BIA factual findings)
Haider v. Holder, 595 F.3d 276 (6th Cir. 2010) (evaluate past persecution in overall context)
Gilaj v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2005) (consider overall context and aggregate evidence)
Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941 (6th Cir. 2004) (burden to show past persecution or well-founded fear)
Ouda v. I.N.S., 324 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2003) (Attorney General discretion to grant asylum)
Kamar v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 811 (6th Cir. 2017) (use of country conditions to assess government ability/efficacy)