Background
Zeira Yamileth Borjas Gonzales, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without proper documentation in October 2018. The Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear, and Borjas Gonzales conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture relief, and humanitarian asylum.
At a hearing before an Immigration Judge, Borjas Gonzales testified about physical and sexual violence inflicted by two brothers in Honduras. The IJ found she had established past persecution but concluded it did not occur on account of a protected ground—a statutory requirement for asylum. The IJ further determined that Borjas Gonzales had not shown a well-founded fear of future persecution because she failed to establish that internal relocation within Honduras would be unreasonable. On this basis, the IJ denied all forms of relief.
Borjas Gonzales appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals but did not challenge the internal relocation finding. The Board affirmed the denial and declined to address her other arguments.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of all relief. The court held that Borjas Gonzales’s failure to contest the internal relocation finding at the administrative level made that finding dispositive. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), an Immigration Judge must deny an asylum claim if the applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of their country of nationality, provided such relocation would be reasonable. Because Borjas Gonzales did not challenge this uncontested finding, she failed to meet her burden of proof for asylum relief.
The same internal relocation finding defeated her withholding of removal claim. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), an applicant cannot establish that life or freedom would be threatened if they could reasonably avoid such threat by relocating within their country. Since the relocation finding stood unchallenged, Borjas Gonzales could not satisfy the higher standard of proof required for withholding of removal.
The court also deemed Borjas Gonzales’s humanitarian asylum argument waived because she failed to develop it on appeal, offering no explanation of how the agency erred in denying this discretionary relief.
Key Takeaways
- An uncontested finding that an applicant could internally relocate to avoid persecution is dispositive of both asylum and withholding of removal claims.
- Procedural default through failure to challenge findings at the administrative level forecloses appellate review of those findings.
- Arguments not adequately developed on appeal—lacking substantive explanation of agency error—are waived and receive no appellate consideration.
Why It Matters
This decision highlights the gatekeeping role of internal relocation in asylum law. Because Immigration Judges frequently rely on country conditions evidence to conclude that applicants can safely relocate within their home countries, practitioners must carefully scrutinize and challenge these findings if inaccurate. An unchallenged relocation finding acts as an absolute bar to relief, even when past persecution is established.
The ruling serves as a procedural cautionary tale: failure to contest critical factual findings at the administrative level results in their adoption as binding fact on appeal. Practitioners handling asylum cases must ensure that every contested finding is raised and developed with specificity at each appellate level, as perfunctory or underdeveloped arguments will be deemed waived and receive no appellate review.