Background
Richard Alcides Noriega Reinoso and his daughter, Alessandra Nicole Noriega Palomino, are natives and citizens of Peru. They sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture based on demands for money and threats from criminal groups targeting them because of Noriega Reinoso’s work in the financial industry.
An immigration judge denied their applications, finding, among other things, that they had not shown that the Peruvian government was unable or unwilling to protect them from the private actors. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed without opinion through its streamlined process, making the immigration judge’s decision the operative reasoning for judicial review. The petitioners then sought review in the Fourth Circuit.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review. Applying substantial-evidence review, the court held that the record supported the agency’s factual finding that the petitioners failed to establish that the Peruvian government was unable or unwilling to protect them from the criminal groups. Because that finding was dispositive of both asylum and withholding of removal, the court did not address the petitioners’ remaining arguments concerning those forms of relief.
The court also rejected the contention that the Board committed legal error by summarily affirming the immigration judge without an opinion. The petitioners did not challenge the denial of CAT protection in their appellate briefing, so the court treated that claim as forfeited. The court resolved the case without oral argument.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant alleging persecution by private actors must establish that the government of the applicant’s home country is unable or unwilling to control those actors.
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that the petitioners had not shown that Peru was unable or unwilling to protect them, which independently defeated their asylum and withholding claims.
- The Board’s use of its affirmance-without-opinion procedure did not establish legal error, and the unbriefed CAT claim was forfeited.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that threats or extortion by private criminal groups do not alone establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. Applicants must also develop record evidence showing that their home government cannot or will not provide protection.
It also illustrates the procedural consequences of a streamlined Board affirmance and incomplete appellate briefing: the court reviews the immigration judge’s reasoning directly, while claims not meaningfully challenged may be forfeited.