Background
The petitioner, a native of El Salvador, fled to the United States after years of physical and verbal abuse by his father, including an attempted murder. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge found the abuse rose to the level of persecution but denied relief because the harm stemmed from a family dispute rather than a protected ground and because the petitioner failed to provide sufficient corroboration regarding government inaction. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld these findings.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the Board of Immigration Appeals decision and found substantial evidence supporting the lower courts’ determinations. The court explained that while the petitioner suffered serious harm, he failed to prove that a protected ground was one central reason for that harm. The court noted that personal disputes are generally insufficient to show the required nexus. Additionally, the court affirmed that the immigration judge properly required corroborating evidence despite finding the petitioner’s testimony credible, as the petitioner failed to provide affidavits from family members who could have supported his claims. The court also noted that the petitioner waived the argument regarding government inability to protect by failing to challenge it before the Board.
Personal disputes are generally not enough to show the required nexus between past harm and a protected ground.
Barnica-Lopez v. Garland, 59 F.4th 520, 531 (1st Cir. 2023)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the strict nexus requirement in asylum cases involving family violence, clarifying that severity of harm alone does not establish persecution without a link to a protected ground. It also underscores the necessity of providing corroborating evidence even when an applicant is found credible.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download