Mejia-Alvarenga v. Garland, 95 F.4th 319

Marta Alicia Mejia-Alvarenga, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the U.S. without documentation and was charged as removable.
She sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection, citing persecution by Rigoberto Nelson, who raped and threatened her, and subsequent threats from his associates and presumed gang members (MS-13).
Mejia-Alvarenga reported threats and attempts to bribe her to authorities, who responded by prosecuting Nelson and removing his attorneys for misconduct.
The immigration judge found Mejia-Alvarenga credible but determined her harm wasn't on account of a protected ground and the Salvadoran government was not unable or unwilling to protect her.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, and Mejia-Alvarenga petitioned for review to the Fifth Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Salvadoran government’s inability/unwillingness to protect from persecutors	Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to protect from Nelson and MS-13; BIA ignored evidence of gang threats	Government took law enforcement actions; no evidence of complete helplessness	Substantial evidence supports BIA’s finding government was not unable/unwilling to protect
BIA impartiality/failure to require opposing brief	BIA acted with bias by not requiring DHS to file a brief and deciding issues sua sponte	No regulatory requirement to force briefing; actions consistent with BIA rules	No bias or regulatory violation; no due process violation
Due process—single-member BIA panel	Due process violated by not referring to three-member BIA panel, limiting reversals	Regulations allow single-member panels; discretion is not a liberty interest	No due process violation; referral is discretionary and within agency’s procedural rulemaking
BIA’s abuse of discretion by not referring case to three-member panel	BIA’s refusal was arbitrary and warrants judicial review	Decision is committed to agency discretion, not subject to judicial review	Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary BIA referral decisions

Bertrand v. Garland, 36 F.4th 627 (5th Cir. 2022) (substantial evidence standard for BIA factual findings and government’s ability/willingness to control persecutors)
Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2017) (scope of review for BIA-influenced IJ decisions)
Sanchez-Amador v. Garland, 30 F.4th 529 (5th Cir. 2022) (evidence required for government’s inability/unwillingness standard)
Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2019) (standard for government protection in asylum context)
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (judicial standard for bias claims)
Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2006) (no constitutional violation for denial of discretionary relief)
Singh v. Garland, 20 F.4th 1049 (5th Cir. 2021) (statistical disparities in asylum grants do not prove bias)