Sanchez-Amador v. Garland
30 F.4th 529
5th Cir.2022Background
- Rosaura Aurora Sanchez-Amador, a Honduran national, applied for asylum in the U.S. with derivative claims for her husband and son; IJ and BIA denied relief and she petitioned the Fifth Circuit.
- She testified to lifelong sexual abuse by family members (which she had not reported to police) and to extortion and a sexual demand by an MS-13 member (Macuto) in 2014.
- Sanchez-Amador reported Macuto’s threats to Honduran police, who said they would investigate but that it would take about two weeks; she fled the country before the investigation concluded.
- She feared future harm from MS-13 and believed Honduran authorities generally would be unwilling or unable to protect her, citing country-condition evidence on police ineffectiveness and machismo culture.
- The IJ and BIA found her credible but concluded she failed to show persecution on account of a protected ground or that Honduran authorities were unable or unwilling to control nonstate actors; the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an applicants subjective belief that authorities would be unwilling or unable to protect her, supported by country conditions evidence, suffices to show the government is "unable or unwilling" to control persecutors | Sanchez-Amador: her subjective fear plus country-condition evidence (police ineffective re: gendered violence and gangs) establishes government unable/unwilling | Government (Garland): subjective belief is insufficient where applicant did not give authorities a fair opportunity and record does not compel finding of official unwillingness or inability | Held: No. Subjective belief plus country evidence is not enough when the applicant did not pursue protection or provide evidence that authorities failed or refused to act |
| Effect of not reporting past sexual abuse to police on asylum claim | Sanchez-Amador: reporting was futile; systemic failures make complaints pointless | Garland: failure to report undermines claim that authorities were unwilling/unable to protect her | Held: Failure to report is fatal where claimant offers only a subjective futility belief; substantial evidence supports BIA rejection |
| Significance of Sanchez-Amadors report of Macuto and the police response | Sanchez-Amador: police delay and general ineffectiveness show inability/unwillingness | Garland: she reported the gang threat, police said they'd investigate; she fled before the investigation concluded and did not pursue the complaint | Held: Reporting followed by leaving before completion does not compel a finding the police were unwilling or unable to help; substantial evidence supports denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109 (5th Cir. 2006) (government must be unwilling or unable to control private persecutors for nonstate-actor persecution)
- Shehu v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 435 (5th Cir. 2006) (same standard; government condonation or helplessness required)
- Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131 (5th Cir. 2006) (applicant bears burden to show evidence compels contrary conclusion)
- Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2018) (review limited to BIA decision unless IJ influenced it)
- Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2018) (substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
- Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2019) (discussing asylum/withholding standards and burden)
- Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395 (5th Cir. 2021) (administrative guidance changes do not displace circuit precedent)
- Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 496 (5th Cir. 2021) (contrast where police affirmatively failed to protect applicant)