Opinion ID: 4531409
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Government Unable or Unwilling to Protect

Text: As an alternative ground for denying Petitioner asylum, the IJ also concluded that Petitioner failed to show that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to protect him. The IJ provided this explanation, which was adopted by the BIA: Respondent testified that his mother reported the robbery to the police, but did not report any of the cartel’s attempts to have them launder money. Additionally, Respondent made no attempt to report any of the threats from the cartel, and thus has not given the Guatemalan government the opportunity to demonstrate that they are unable or unwilling to protect him from his feared persecution. To prove eligibility for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that the alleged persecution was inflicted by a government official or by persons that the government is unable to control. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). As noted correctly by the IJ, an applicant may establish the 9 Case: 19-11711 Date Filed: 05/04/2020 Page: 10 of 11 government’s inability or unwillingness to control a private actor “by presenting evidence that he reported the persecution to local government authorities or that it would have been useless to do so.” See id. at 950 (citing Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1341, 1345 (11th Cir. 2007)). Because we conclude that the BIA’s and the IJ’s findings on this issue are inadequate, we are unable to review this alternative ground for denying Petitioner asylum. First, in finding that Petitioner and Orquidia failed to report to the police the cartel’s money-laundering demands, the IJ misstated the contents of the record. The record shows that Petitioner testified that Orquidia did go to the police after the cartel demanded that she launder money for them, but that the police refused to help her. The IJ provided no explanation for not crediting this portion of Petitioner’s otherwise credible testimony. The BIA’s and IJ’s decisions also failed to address or make factual findings about Petitioner’s contention and testimony that the police were involved with the cartel and, thus, that it would have been useless to report the cartel’s ongoing threats to the police. “Although the failure to report persecution to local government authorities generally is fatal to an asylum claim, . . . it would be excused where the petitioner convincingly demonstrates that those authorities would have been unable or unwilling to protect [him], and for that reason [he] could not rely on them.” Lopez, 504 F.3d at 1345. Given Petitioner’s testimony 10 Case: 19-11711 Date Filed: 05/04/2020 Page: 11 of 11 about police corruption, that Petitioner took no steps to seek protection from the police -- by itself -- might not be enough to defeat his claim for asylum. See id. (remanding for further consideration where the BIA concluded only that petitioner had failed to seek protection from law enforcement and failed to address petitioner’s claim that those authorities were unable or unwilling to protect her). For these reasons, we conclude that the BIA and the IJ failed to give reasoned consideration to all the evidence and claims presented by Petitioner and failed to make adequate findings. We are thus unable to review meaningfully the agency’s denial of Petitioner’s application for relief. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand the case for further proceedings. PETITION GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED. 11