Isolated Threats and Prior Safe Relocation: Limits on Asylum Claims from Private-Actor Violence

Introduction

This commentary examines the Second Circuit’s summary order in Ixcoy Sica v. Bondi, 22-6488 (2d Cir. Apr. 24, 2025). The petitioner, Raul Sebastian Ixcoy Sica, is a Guatemalan national who sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after MS-13 gang members threatened him and struck him once in the face when he refused to join. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, and the Second Circuit summarily affirmed. Key issues include whether unfulfilled threats and isolated violence by a private group rise to “persecution” and whether internal relocation within Guatemala was reasonable, given petitioner’s prior safe movement.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit applied the substantial‐evidence standard to the IJ’s factual findings and de novo review to legal questions. It held that:

Unfulfilled death threats by gang members, without aggravating circumstances or evidence of actual harm to similarly situated individuals, did not constitute past persecution.
A single slap or punch, without injury or ongoing abuse, fell short of “persecution” and was only “harassment.”
Petitioner’s demonstrated ability to relocate within Guatemala—he and his family moved five hours away for two months without further incident—weighed decisively against his claim that internal relocation was unreasonable.
Because asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief each require either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution that cannot be avoided by internal relocation, petitioner’s claims failed across the board.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005): Established that appellate review of IJ decisions modified by the BIA excludes grounds the BIA did not adopt.
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009): Confirmed de novo review for legal questions and substantial‐evidence review for factual findings in immigration cases.
Huo Qiang Chen v. Holder, 773 F.3d 396 (2d Cir. 2014): Held that unfulfilled threats, absent aggravating circumstances or specificity, generally fail to establish past persecution.
KC v. Garland, 108 F.4th 130 (2d Cir. 2024): Clarified that death threats rise to persecution only when they are imminent, concrete, or accompanied by other menacing factors.
Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2006): Recognized that persecution can include non-life-threatening physical abuse but must rise above mere harassment.
Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 2006): Defined “mere harassment” versus abusive conduct constituting persecution.
Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2011): Emphasized that persecution is an “extreme concept” and does not include all offensive treatment.
Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820 (2d Cir. 2011): Noted that beatings alone do not necessarily amount to persecution absent broader context.
Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005): Treated prior successful relocation as strong evidence that internal relocation is reasonable.
Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106 (2d Cir. 2021): Held that general country‐conditions evidence cannot substitute for individualized proof of inability to relocate.
Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010): Explained that failure to show eligibility for asylum dooms withholding and CAT claims as well.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds in three steps:

Past Persecution Requirement: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), an asylum seeker must show either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court found no past persecution because:

Threats alone, without follow-through or a pattern of violence against others, are insufficient (Huo Qiang Chen; KC).
A single slap, with no medical injury or repeated abuse, amounts at most to “harassment” (Ivanishvili; Beskovic; Mei Fun Wong).

Internal Relocation Analysis: For private actor–based fears, the applicant must show that relocation within the country would be unreasonable or impossible (8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i)). Petitioner’s prior two-month, incident-free stay in another Guatemalan state was substantial evidence that he could avoid MS-13 by moving again (Jian Xing Huang).
Consequences for Withholding and CAT Relief: Under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(b)(3), (c)(2)–(3), withholding and CAT relief require an even higher showing of likelihood of persecution or torture. Because petitioner failed the asylum standard, he necessarily could not satisfy these stricter criteria (Lecaj).

Impact

This decision reinforces key principles in asylum law:

Unfulfilled threats and minor, isolated violence by private actors will not ordinarily qualify as persecution without additional factors showing severity or pattern.
Prior safe relocation within the home country is powerful evidence that future relocation would be reasonable.
General country-condition reports do not substitute for an individualized showing of inability to relocate.

Future applicants facing private-actor violence must present either stronger evidence of targeted, severe harm or demonstrate that internal flight is impracticable despite previous moves.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Persecution: Severe, targeted harm—such as torture, repeated beatings, or credible death threats carried out or likely to be carried out—sufficiently extreme to compel protection.
Asylum vs. Withholding of Removal vs. CAT Relief: Asylum requires a “well-founded fear” (lower threshold) of persecution on protected grounds. Withholding requires a “clear probability” of persecution. CAT relief demands “more likely than not” torture.
Internal Relocation: If an asylum seeker fears private individuals rather than the government, he must show he cannot avoid persecution by moving elsewhere in his country.
Substantial Evidence Standard: The court upholds factual findings unless no reasonable adjudicator could reach the same conclusion.

Conclusion

Ixcoy Sica v. Bondi crystallizes that unfulfilled threats and an isolated incident of non‐severe violence by nonstate actors ordinarily do not rise to the level of persecution. Moreover, an applicant who has previously relocated safely within his country bears a heavy burden to prove that further relocation would be unreasonable. This decision will shape future asylum and withholding applications, compelling applicants to present either severe, targeted abuse or clear evidence that internal flight is not a realistic option.