Morales-Morales v. Sessions, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8901

Morales, a Guatemalan who entered the U.S. unlawfully in 2012, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after being beaten and threatened in Guatemala for affiliating with the Partido political party.
In 2011 Morales distributed Partido fliers; about a year later he and four colleagues were beaten by members of the rival Lider party; Morales was hospitalized and had a broken arm.
After the attack Morales received threatening phone calls; his uncle (also a Partido member) had disappeared in 2011 after similar threats.
Morales did not report the beating to police, testifying he believed the police were corrupt and that reporting would lead to eventual retribution by the attackers.
The IJ found Morales credible but denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief, concluding the single attack did not amount to past persecution, Morales failed to show government action or acquiescence, and relocation within Guatemala was reasonable.
The BIA affirmed, adopting the IJ’s reasoning that the mistreatment did not rise to persecution, government protection was not shown to be futile, and the higher standards for withholding and CAT were unmet.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Morales suffered past persecution	Single severe beating plus threats tied to political membership qualifies as past persecution	One incident by private actors is insufficient; no evidence government was unable/unwilling to protect	Denied — not past persecution
Whether government was unable or unwilling to protect (acquiescence/futility)	Police are corrupt; reporting would be futile and expose him to retribution	Subjective belief of corruption without reporting or evidence insufficient to show futility or acquiescence	Denied — no showing of government acquiescence or futility
Whether Morales has a well-founded fear of future persecution / countrywide risk / relocation reasonableness	Continued threats and uncle’s disappearance show fear of return	Family and other party members remained in Guatemala unharmed; relocation within country reasonable	Denied — fear not shown countrywide; relocation reasonable
Eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT protection (higher burdens)	Would likely face persecution/torture if returned	Higher clear-probability standard unmet; no government involvement or acquiescence shown	Denied — failed higher burden for withholding and CAT

Giraldo–Pabon v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.) (defines refugee/persecution framework)
INS v. Elías‑Zacarías, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (factual findings reviewed under substantial evidence standard)
Guaman‑Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119 (1st Cir.) (harm must result from government action or inability/unwillingness to control private actors)
Barsoum v. Holder, 617 F.3d 73 (1st Cir.) (subjective belief of police inaction without further evidence is inadequate)
Ivanov v. Holder, 736 F.3d 5 (1st Cir.) (government failure to respond to credible reports can show unwillingness/inability)
INS v. Cardoza‑Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (distinguishes asylum well‑founded fear standard from withholding clear‑probability standard)