Jhon Eduardo Restrepo Castano, a Colombian national, faced death threats from the Gulf Clan, a violent criminal enterprise, while operating a bakery in Colombia. After receiving in-person threats in September 2021, Castano reported the conduct to local police, who responded by stationing a guard at his bakery and blocking the specific phone lines used by the gang. While the in-person threats ceased, the gang continued to issue threats via phone from different numbers. Castano and his family fled to the United States in March 2022 and sought asylum and withholding of removal. An Immigration Judge found that while the threats were credible, Castano failed to establish that the Colombian government was unwilling or unable to protect him, noting the government's willingness was shown by the immediate police response. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision, and Castano petitioned the First Circuit for review, arguing the government was unable to protect him.
The court analyzed whether the agency's determination that the Colombian government was able to protect Castano was supported by substantial evidence. The legal framework requires an asylum applicant to show that the government is unwilling or unable to control private actors causing persecution. The court emphasized that the standard of review is highly deferential; the agency's findings are upheld unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The court rejected Castano's argument that the continuation of telephonic threats proved government inability. First, the record was unclear on whether Castano reported the ongoing calls after the guard was posted, and he did not argue that reporting would have been futile. Second, the court found the police response 'fruitful' because it stopped the in-person threats and blocked specific numbers. The court distinguished this case from prior decisions where governments were found unable to protect, noting that no government can provide absolute protection and that the mere fact that a government does not completely eradicate crime is insufficient to establish inability. The court also addressed procedural challenges, finding the BIA correctly applied the clear error standard to the IJ's factual findings and adequately explained its reasoning by acknowledging the continued threats but emphasizing the government's concerted effort to combat them.
The petition for review is denied, meaning the Immigration Judge's and BIA's decisions denying asylum and withholding of removal stand. Castano and his family remain subject to removal proceedings. The decision reinforces the principle that a government's partial success in protecting an applicant from private actors, such as stopping in-person threats while failing to stop all telephonic ones, can satisfy the 'able to protect' requirement under the substantial evidence standard. No remand instructions were issued.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download