Angarita-Quezada v. Garland: Clarifying Persecution and Government Protection Standards in LGBTQ Asylum Claims

Introduction

This case involves Diana Fernanda Angarita-Quezada, a Colombian national, and her minor children, who seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. Angarita-Quezada entered the United States in February 2022 without inspection, claiming past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her sexual orientation, as well as fear of torture. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, the BIA affirmed, and the Tenth Circuit denied her petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit unanimously upheld the BIA’s decision:

It found substantial evidence supported the IJ’s conclusion that the harms and threats endured did not rise to the level of past persecution.
It agreed that the Colombian government’s existing legal protections for LGBTQ persons and reported enforcement efforts refuted an inability or unwillingness to protect the petitioner.
The court held that denial of asylum necessarily precluded withholding of removal, which requires a higher standard.
The IJ’s CAT analysis properly considered country-conditions evidence alongside petitioner’s testimony, so CAT relief was correctly denied.
An argument regarding Special Immigrant Juvenile Status for the children was unexhausted and waived.

Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted in forma pauperis status.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Rodas-Orellana v. Holder (780 F.3d 982): Defines the elements of “particular social group”:

Common, immutable characteristic
Defined with particularity
Recognized as a group by society

Ritonga v. Holder (633 F.3d 971): Explains “persecution” must involve more than denigration or threats, and requires actual infliction of harm or suffering.
Zhi Wei Pang v. Holder (665 F.3d 1226): Clarifies that substantial evidence review precludes overturning fact findings unless compelled.
Vatulev v. Ashcroft (354 F.3d 1207): Holds that threats alone are rarely persecution unless immediate and menacing.
Yuk v. Ashcroft (355 F.3d 1222): Reinforces the substantial-evidence standard on government unwillingness or inability to protect.
Singh v. Bondi (130 F.4th 848): Applies substantial-evidence review to the “unable or unwilling” protection inquiry.
Dallakoti v. Holder (619 F.3d 1264): Instructs that appellate review encompasses both the BIA’s order and any IJ findings it adopted.
INS v. Bagamasbad (429 U.S. 24): Holds agencies need not address issues unnecessary to their final decision.
Berdiev v. Garland (13 F.4th 1125): Limits judicial review to grounds actually relied on by the agency.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied the following legal framework:

Asylum – Requires proof of past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group (8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A)).
Withholding of Removal – A higher standard than asylum, demanding a “clear probability” of persecution (8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); Rodas-Orellana, 780 F.3d at 987).
CAT Protection – Requires a showing that it is “more likely than not” the applicant would be tortured with government acquiescence upon removal (8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1)); no protected-ground nexus is required.
Standard of Review – Legal conclusions de novo; factual findings for substantial evidence (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).

Applying these standards, the court concluded:

Petitioner’s threats and harassment did not constitute “persecution” as defined by this court’s precedent.
Colombia’s legal framework—recognition of same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination statutes—and pro-active measures weighed against a finding of government unwillingness or inability to protect.
Failure to meet the lower asylum standard foreclosed withholding of removal relief.
The IJ’s CAT analysis adequately considered country-conditions reports and petitioner’s testimony together, so no error occurred.
Issues not raised before the BIA—such as Special Immigrant Juvenile Status—are forfeited on appeal.

Impact

This decision underscores and clarifies several points for future immigration claims:

Enforcement of the substantial-evidence standard—even where applicants present credible, sympathetic testimony.
Heightened scrutiny of whether harassment and threats meet the threshold of “persecution.”
Recognition that legal protections on the books, combined with some enforcement efforts, can defeat claims of government unwillingness or inability to protect.
Reiteration that unexhausted issues will not be considered by the court.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Particular Social Group – A group defined by an unchangeable or fundamental trait that society recognizes as a distinguishing characteristic.
Nexus – The causal link between harm and a protected ground (e.g., sexual orientation).
Substantial Evidence – A deferential review standard; the court will not overturn fact findings unless no reasonable adjudicator could reach the same conclusion.
Withholding vs. Asylum – Withholding demands a higher probability of harm than the “well-founded fear” needed for asylum.
CAT Protection – Focuses on likelihood of torture by or with government acquiescence, regardless of motivation.

Conclusion

Angarita-Quezada v. Garland reaffirms the rigorous standards for qualifying as a refugee based on membership in a particular social group and for establishing government unwillingness or inability to protect. It confirms that credible testimony of mistreatment, standing alone, may not suffice to meet the legal definition of persecution. The decision also highlights the necessity of exhausting all issues before the administrative agency. This ruling will guide practitioners and adjudicators in assessing LGBTQ-based asylum claims, clarifying the evidentiary thresholds for persecution, protection failures, and CAT relief.