C-G-T

Cite as 

 (BIA 2023)                                 Interim Decision #4065




                        Matter of C-G-T-, Respondent
                             Decided September 8, 2023

                           U.S. Department of Justice
                    Executive Office for Immigration Review
                        Board of Immigration Appeals


(1) Determining whether the government is or was unable or unwilling to protect the
   respondent from harm is a fact-specific inquiry based on consideration of all evidence.
(2) A respondent’s failure to report harm is not necessarily fatal to a claim of persecution
   if the respondent can demonstrate that reporting private abuse to government authorities
   would have been futile or dangerous.
(3) When considering future harm, adjudicators should not expect a respondent to hide his
   or her sexual orientation if removed to his or her native country.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: David B. Spitzer, Esquire, Boston, Massachusetts
BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge;
HUNSUCKER, Appellate Immigration Judge; NOFERI, Temporary Appellate
Immigration Judge.
NOFERI, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge:


    The respondent, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, appeals
from the Immigration Judge’s March 3, 2023, decision denying his
applications for asylum and withholding of removal under sections
208(b)(1)(A) and 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”), 

(b)(1)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A) (2018). 1 The record will
be remanded for the entry of a new decision. 2

1
   The respondent has not challenged the Immigration Judge’s denial of protection under
the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture. Thus, we deem this issue
waived on appeal. Matter of D-G-C-, 

, 297 n.1 (BIA 2021).
2
   The Immigration Judge presided by televideo from the Immigration Adjudication
Center in Richmond, Virginia, over the merits hearing in the Boston Immigration Court.
The respondent correctly argues that precedent from the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit should govern this appeal because venue was changed to the Boston
Immigration Court, which is located within the geographic boundaries of the First Circuit.
See Matter of Garcia, 

, 703 (BIA 2023) (holding that the circuit law of
the jurisdiction where venue lies will be controlling); see also Bazile v. Garland, 

, 13–14 (1st Cir. 2023) (finding Matter of Garcia persuasive in light of the agency’s
expertise).

                                           740
Cite as 

 (BIA 2023)                          Interim Decision #4065




            I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    The respondent testified that he was abused by his father as a child
because of his sexual orientation. He testified that he knew he was gay at a
young age. He further testified that his father called him a girl, targeted him
for particularly harsh treatment, and hit him almost every day. The
declarations from the respondent’s brother and uncle state that they thought
the respondent’s father beat the respondent because the father thought his son
was gay. The respondent testified that he left his hometown when he was
17 years old, and he came to the United States in 2007. The respondent
testified that after he came to the United States, his mother told his father that
he was gay, and the respondent’s father then abused his mother. In 2013, the
respondent was diagnosed as HIV-positive.
    The Immigration Judge found the respondent credible and concluded that
he is a member of two cognizable particular social groups, namely
homosexual Dominican males and Dominicans who are HIV-positive. See
Matter of Toboso-Alfonso, 

, 822–23 (BIA 1990) (holding
that homosexuals in Cuba constituted a cognizable particular social group).
The Immigration Judge denied asylum based on the 1-year bar in section
208(a)(2)(B) of the INA, 

(a)(2)(B).
    The Immigration Judge concluded that the respondent did not establish
that the harm he suffered by his father in the Dominican Republic was on
account of a protected ground since his father did not then know he was gay.
The Immigration Judge also determined that the respondent did not establish
past persecution because he did not show the government in the Dominican
Republic was unable or unwilling to protect him from harm. See INA
§ 101(a)(42), 

(a)(42) (2018). The Immigration Judge
concluded that the respondent was not more likely than not to suffer future
persecution because he did not show that anyone in the Dominican Republic,
aside from his father, knew he was gay or HIV-positive and would harm him
for that reason.

                          II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
                           A. 1-Year Bar to Asylum

   We affirm the Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum because the
respondent did not file his asylum application until July 2014, well beyond
the 1-year deadline set forth in section 208(a)(2)(B) of the INA, 

(a)(2)(B).       The respondent argues that his HIV-positive
diagnosis should constitute changed circumstances excusing a late filing.
INA § 208(a)(2)(D), 

(a)(2)(D). We need not decide whether

                                       741
Cite as 

 (BIA 2023)                                Interim Decision #4065




the respondent’s HIV-positive diagnosis in June 2013 amounts to changed
circumstances because, even if it did, the respondent has not shown that his
filing more than 1 year later was within a reasonable period of time after
learning of the diagnosis. See 

(a)(4)(ii) (2023); see also
Matter of T-M-H- & S-W-C-, 

 (BIA 2010)
(acknowledging that delays of 1 year or more will be justified in rare cases).

            B. Past Persecution on Account of a Protected Ground

    The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent did not establish
past persecution on account of his membership in the particular social group
of homosexual Dominican males because his father was not told he was gay
until after he left the Dominican Republic. 3 However, the Immigration
Judge’s analysis does not address all relevant evidence regarding the
respondent’s father’s motive for harm before the respondent left the
Dominican Republic. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 

 (1992)
(describing an asylum applicant’s evidentiary burden with respect to nexus);
Matter of N-M-, 

 (BIA 2011) (“A persecutor’s actual
motive is a matter of fact to be determined by the Immigration Judge and
reviewed by us for clear error.”).
    For example, the Immigration Judge did not consider the declarations
from the respondent, his brother, and his uncle stating that the respondent’s
father singled him out for abuse because the father thought the respondent
was gay. The Immigration Judge’s nexus analysis also does not address the
evidence that the respondent’s father called the respondent a girl and
expressed animus towards gay people. We will remand the record to allow
the Immigration Judge to consider all evidence of motive, as part of
determining whether the respondent’s membership in the group homosexual
Dominican males was at least one central reason he suffered or may suffer
harm. 4 See Matter of S-H-, 

, 464–66 (BIA 2002)
(describing the importance of clear and complete factual findings); see also
INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i), 

(b)(1)(B)(i) (requiring a showing that
a protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for the
persecution).

3
    The Immigration Judge correctly concluded that the respondent did not suffer past
persecution on account of his HIV-positive diagnosis because the respondent was not
diagnosed until after he left the Dominican Republic. See Matter of H-L-S-A-, 

, 231 n.1 (BIA 2021) (“past persecution” must occur in the country of removal).
The respondent does not challenge that determination on appeal.
4
   The Immigration Judge did not determine whether the respondent suffered harm that
rises to the level of severity to constitute persecution. On remand, the Immigration Judge
should explicitly make that determination.

                                          742
Cite as 

 (BIA 2023)                        Interim Decision #4065




            C. Unable or Unwilling to Protect from Persecution

    In determining that the respondent did not demonstrate the government
was unable or unwilling to protect him from persecution, the Immigration
Judge cited the respondent’s failure to report the harm his father inflicted on
him as a child. The respondent testified that it would have been futile for
him to have reported the abuse as a child, and that reporting may have
subjected him to additional abuse.
    Whether a government is unable or unwilling to protect an individual
from persecution is a question of fact that we review for clear error. Ortiz-
Araniba v. Keisler, 

 (1st Cir. 2007). When engaging in this
fact-specific inquiry, government authorities’ timely response to a
respondent reporting harm may be indicative of their ability or willingness
to protect the respondent from harm. See 

 (observing that “a prompt
response by local authorities to prior incidents is ‘the most telling datum’” in
determining whether a government is able and willing to control persecutors)
(quoting Harutyunyan v. Gonzales, 

 (1st Cir. 2005)); see also
Pan v. Holder, 

 (2d Cir. 2015) (acknowledging that police
inaction in response to the respondent’s reporting of harm “tends to prove
that the government is unwilling to protect its citizens”).
     “[A] failure to report mistreatment—even if based on the [respondent’s]
subjective belief that authorities are corrupt—is not, without more, sufficient
to show that” the government is unable or unwilling to protect the
respondent. Morales-Morales v. Sessions, 

 (1st Cir. 2017)
(collecting cases, and affirming the determination that the respondent failed
to demonstrate government authorities were unable or unwilling to protect
him); accord Vila-Castro v. Garland, 

, 13–14 (1st Cir. 2023).
    However, failure to report harm is “not necessarily fatal” to a claim of
persecution if the applicant “can demonstrate that reporting private abuse to
government authorities would have been futile” or dangerous. Rosales Justo
v. Sessions, 

 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting Morales-Morales,

).
    In Matter of S-A-, the Board recognized that it may be futile or dangerous
for an abused child to seek protection from the authorities. 

, 1332–33 (BIA 2000). Multiple circuit courts have recognized that due
to their young age, children may not be able to articulate their fear, or
approach law enforcement officials, in the same way as an adult. See, e.g.,
Portillo Flores v. Garland, 

, 635–36 (4th Cir. 2021) (en banc);
Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 

 (9th Cir. 2017) (en
banc). When a child is being abused by a parent or relative, the child may
be prevented by their abuser from contacting the authorities, or any attempt
to report the harm might worsen the child’s circumstances. Portillo Flores,

                                      743
Cite as 

 (BIA 2023)                                  Interim Decision #4065

. These are fact-specific inquiries, and we recognize that there
may be a substantial difference in the ability of a young child to report abuse
or recognize mistreatment as abuse, as compared to an older child. See
Bringas-Rodriguez, 

 (noting that younger children may lack
the cognitive ability to understand harm as abuse).
    On remand, the Immigration Judge should consider the reasonableness of
the respondent’s failure to seek assistance from the authorities in his country
as part of considering all evidence regarding whether the government was
unable or unwilling to protect the respondent. See 

 (stating that
whether or not a victim reports harm, and evidence explaining why not, are
factors in the unable or unwilling analysis). This analysis should include the
respondent’s testimony, available corroborating evidence, and country
conditions reports. See, e.g., Rosales Justo, 

 (emphasizing
the importance of reviewing the entire record); Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec.
at 1332–33, 1335 (evaluating record evidence). 5 For example, the record
indicates the respondent testified that children do not make reports to the
authorities in the Dominican Republic and they do what they are told. He
testified that his father would have killed him if he reported the abuse to the
authorities, that he did not report to a teacher because everyone knew his
father, and that he reported the abuse to his grandmother but she did not take
any action. The respondent also testified that his access to government
assistance was further limited because he lived in a small town far from the
nearest city.
    Determining whether it was reasonable for the respondent not to seek help
from the authorities in his own country is a fact-based inquiry. Cf. Rosales
Justo, 

 n.6. A mere “subjective belief” that reporting would
be futile is not sufficient to establish that a government is unable or unwilling
to provide protection. Morales-Morales, 

. Rather, a
respondent must demonstrate, based on the record as a whole, that the
government is unable or unwilling to protect him or her from persecution.
Compare Morales-Morales, 

 (concluding that the respondent
did not satisfy his burden because he testified that if he had reported
incidents, the perpetrators “would go to jail”), with Doe v. Att’y Gen. of U.S.,
5
   If, on remand, the Immigration Judge finds that the respondent established past
persecution, the respondent is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of future persecution for
withholding of removal. 

(b)(1) (2020). The Immigration Judge did not
make findings regarding whether the respondent continues to fear persecution from his
father. If the Immigration Judge determines that the respondent is not more likely than not
to face persecution in the Dominican Republic from anyone else, the Immigration Judge
may consider whether there are changed circumstances regarding the respondent’s fear of
his father now that the respondent is an adult. See Matter of D-I-M-, 

 (BIA 2008) (describing the analytical framework for rebutting a presumption of future
persecution); 

(b)(1)(i)(A).

                                            744
Cite as 

 (BIA 2023)                             Interim Decision #4065

, 146–49 (3d Cir. 2020) (considering testimony and country
conditions evidence in determining that the Ghanian government was unable
or unwilling to protect a gay respondent notwithstanding that he did not
report an assault to the police).

          D. Future Persecution on Account of a Protected Ground

     The Immigration Judge concluded the respondent did not demonstrate
that it is more likely than not he would be persecuted if returned to the
Dominican Republic. Specifically, the Immigration Judge found the
evidence did not demonstrate that anyone in the Dominican Republic other
than the respondent’s father would know the respondent is gay. 6 To the
extent this conclusion could be viewed as based on an assumption that the
respondent could avoid future harm by not engaging in conduct that would
identify himself as gay, it would be in error.
     As a general matter, we do not base consideration of an applicant’s fear
of future harm on the ability or requirement to hide his or her sexual
orientation. Protection under asylum and withholding of removal is available
to applicants who fear persecution on account of their membership in a
particular social group based on sexual orientation. Kadri v. Mukasey, 

 (1st Cir. 2008); Matter of Toboso-Alfonso, 20 I&N Dec. at
822–23. Sexual orientation, like other protected grounds, is “a characteristic
that either is beyond the power of an individual to change or is so
fundamental to individual identity or conscience that it ought not be required
to be changed.” Matter of Acosta, 

 (BIA 1985),
modified on other grounds by Matter of Mogharrabi, 

 (BIA
1987).
     As such, when considering future harm, adjudicators should not expect a
respondent to hide his or her sexual orientation if removed to his or her native
country. See Doe, 

 (holding that it was not reasonable to
require an applicant “to return to hiding and suppressing his identity and
sexuality as a gay man” in order to avoid persecution) (citing Shan Zhu Qiu
v. Holder, 

 (7th Cir. 2010) (concluding that requiring a
respondent to “cease the practice of [his religion] or hope to evade discovery
. . . runs contrary to the language and purpose of our asylum laws”)); Singh
v. Sessions, 

 (5th Cir. 2018) (“[A]n [asylum applicant]
cannot be forced to live in hiding in order to avoid persecution.”). “[W]e see
no appreciable difference between an individual . . . being persecuted for

6
   The Immigration Judge also determined that the respondent did not provide any
evidence that anyone in the Dominican Republic would know he is HIV-positive. On
remand, the Immigration Judge may further consider the respondent’s claim based on his
HIV-positive status, consistent with this decision.

                                         745
Cite as 

 (BIA 2023)                                   Interim Decision #4065




being a homosexual and being persecuted for engaging in homosexual acts.”
Karouni v. Gonzales, 

 (9th Cir. 2005). 7

                                 III. CONCLUSION
    We will remand the record for further consideration of the respondent’s
claim for withholding of removal. Specifically, the Immigration Judge
should reevaluate whether the respondent established past persecution and
whether the Dominican government was unable or unwilling to protect the
respondent from any past persecution on account of his asserted particular
social group of “homosexual Dominican males.” The Immigration Judge
should also reevaluate whether the respondent has established that he is more
likely than not to suffer persecution on account of his membership in either
of his asserted particular social groups, and consider whether the Dominican
government would be unable or unwilling to protect the respondent in the
future. On remand, the Immigration Judge may conduct further proceedings
as appropriate. In remanding, we express no opinion as to the ultimate
outcome of these proceedings.
    Accordingly, the following order will be entered.
    ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new
decision.




7
   Previously, in Matter of Toboso-Alfonso, the Board distinguished between the
applicant’s “status as a homosexual” (i.e., membership in the particular social group) and
his “conduct . . . e.g., . . . engaging in homosexual acts,” and declined to reach the question
of whether harm based on conduct could constitute persecution on account of the protected
ground, in part because “conduct” was criminalized in the United States at that time.
Matter of Toboso-Alfonso, 20 I&N Dec. at 821–22; see 

 at 825 (citing Bowers v.
Hardwick, 

 (1986)). United States law has since changed. See Karouni v.
Gonzales, 

 (citing Lawrence v. Texas, 

 (2003)).

                                             746