Melvin Osorio-Morales v. Merrick Garland, 72 F.4th 738

Decades‑long violent feud between the Osorio and Hernandez families in Honduras began after a 1996 homicide and retaliatory killings; family home was set on fire and Melvin’s grandmother died in the blaze.
Several relatives were killed, injured, or traumatized over the years; Melvin testified his family never reported most incidents to police.
Melvin Osorio‑Morales fled Honduras for the U.S. in 2014, fearing he would be targeted next, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
At a 2019 IJ hearing the judge found Melvin credible but denied relief: no past persecution (Melvin was not individually attacked), no objectively reasonable fear of future persecution, and the Honduran government was not shown to be unable or unwilling to protect him.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision; the Seventh Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and denied Osorio‑Morales’s petition for review.

Issue	Osorio‑Morales' Argument	Garland's Argument	Held
Whether Melvin suffered "past persecution"	Family’s long history of violence should count toward Melvin’s past persecution	Melvin himself was never threatened or harmed, so no past persecution	Held: No—because persecution must be directed at the applicant; family harm alone did not establish past persecution
Whether Melvin has a well‑founded fear of future persecution	Lifetime exposure to family feud and recent killings make future harm reasonably likely	Melvin lived safely in same town until age 16 and relatives remain there; no objective likelihood of persecution	Held: No—fear is subjective but not objectively reasonable under the record
Whether Honduran government is unwilling or unable to protect him	Investigations ended with releases and police inaction show government failure	Government initiated investigations (e.g., after the 1996 fire); no evidence why prosecutions failed; family did not seek police help for later incidents	Held: No—substantial evidence supports conclusion Honduras was not shown to be unable or unwilling to protect him

N.L.A. v. Holder, 744 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 2014) (family members’ past harm cannot be imputed to applicant absent showing directed at applicant)
Vahora v. Holder, 707 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2013) (applicant must show government unwilling or unable to protect; failure to seek police assistance is relevant)
Jonaitiene v. Holder, 660 F.3d 267 (7th Cir. 2011) (decision not to prosecute, without more, does not by itself show government unwillingness to protect)
Bitsin v. Holder, 719 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2013) (government steps to investigate or provide protection services can defeat "unable or unwilling" claim)
Escobar v. Holder, 657 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2011) (persecution must be inflicted by government or private actors the government cannot control)
Minghai Tian v. Holder, 745 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2014) (appellate review is deferential; decisions upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
Rama v. Holder, 607 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2010) (reversal only if evidence compels a different result)
Dai v. Garland, 24 F.4th 628 (7th Cir. 2022) (summarizing asylum/refugee standard)