Unwilling-or-Unable Standard Clarified in Domestic Violence Asylum Claims: Escobar-Garcia v. Bondi

Introduction

This commentary examines the Second Circuit’s summary order in Escobar-Garcia v. Bondi, 23-6581 (2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2025), which denied review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)’s decision rejecting an asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim by Maria Maribel Escobar-Garcia, a Honduran national. The key issue was whether abuse by a private actor (her former partner) could amount to persecution attributable to the Honduran government under the “unwilling-or-unable” standard. The petitioner argued that Honduran authorities failed to protect her from ongoing domestic violence; the government maintained that she received protective measures and that country conditions demonstrated enforcement and escalation of punishments against abusers. The court’s decision highlights the evidentiary and legal standards governing asylum claims based on private-actor persecution.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit denied the petition for review. It held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that:

Escobar-Garcia failed to establish past persecution by a state actor or by private persons whom the state was unable or unwilling to control.
She did not show that Honduran courts and police were unwilling or unable to protect her, given her successful 2011 domestic violence complaint, contempt finding against the abuser, and community-service sentence.
The record did not compel reconsideration of country conditions evidence indicating that Honduras has legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms to address domestic violence.
The petitioner’s CAT claim similarly failed, as she did not demonstrate a likelihood of torture with the consent or acquiescence of public officials.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005): Established that the court reviews the IJ’s decision “as modified by the BIA” under a deferential standard for factual findings and de novo for legal questions.
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009): Confirmed de novo review of legal conclusions in immigration decisions.
Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2020): Defined persecution by a private actor as requiring that the government condoned, acquiesced in, or was helpless to prevent the abuse.
Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106 (2d Cir. 2021): Clarified that the unwilling-or-unable standard “ordinarily requires” proof that government authorities were helpless or condoned persecutory acts.
Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569 (2d Cir. 2021): Applied substantial-evidence review to CAT claims and emphasized individualized evidence of government acquiescence to torture.
Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006): Presumption that an IJ considered all evidence absent record indication otherwise.
Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013): Deference to the agency’s evaluation of documentary evidence weight.
Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (B.I.A. 2014): Recognized domestic violence victims as a particular social group, but distinguished here because police intervened in Escobar-Garcia’s case.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in three main steps:

Standards of Review: Factual findings are upheld unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary” (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)); legal questions are reviewed de novo.
Application of the Unwilling-or-Unable Standard: The petitioner bore the burden to show that Honduran authorities were unwilling or unable to control her abuser. The record reflected that she filed a successful domestic violence complaint in 2011, leading to protective orders, a contempt finding, and a community-service sentence. Country reports confirmed that Honduran law prescribes protective measures and escalating penalties for repeat offenders.
Evaluation of Evidence: The IJ and BIA reasonably afforded limited weight to older expert reports that were not subject to cross-examination. They also properly presumed consideration of all proffered country conditions evidence, in line with Xiao Ji Chen.

Impact

This decision, while a non-precedential summary order, reinforces key principles for asylum and CAT claims based on private-actor violence:

It clarifies the degree of individualized evidence required to prove government inability or unwillingness when the applicant has previously received some state intervention.
It underscores that filing additional complaints or seeking continued protective measures may be necessary to demonstrate ongoing government failure.
It affirms that substantial-evidence review will sustain agency findings when country conditions and official actions show legal frameworks and enforcement against domestic violence.
It signals to practitioners the importance of contemporaneous, cross-examinable expert testimony and up-to-date country reports.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Unwilling-or-Unable Standard: Even if persecution is by a private individual, asylum may exist if the government cannot or will not stop it. The applicant must show state helplessness or condonation.
Substantial-Evidence Review: A deferential test under which a court upholds factual findings unless no reasonable fact-finder could reach the same conclusion.
De Novo Review: The court independently examines legal questions without deferring to the agency’s conclusion.
Acquiescence for CAT Relief: Torture must be inflicted “by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.” Applicants need evidence that authorities would turn a blind eye.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit’s resolution of Escobar-Garcia v. Bondi underscores that successful asylum claims predicated on private-actor violence demand clear proof of government inability or unwillingness to intervene. Past state action in the form of protective orders and convictions can defeat an applicant’s burden absent new evidence of continued failure to protect. The ruling thus provides practical guidance to asylum seekers, their counsel, and adjudicators on assembling and evaluating evidence under the unwilling-or-unable standard and the CAT framework. Although non-precedential, the decision crystallizes the interplay between domestic violence claims, state responsibility, and evidentiary requirements in immigration relief.