Summary
This Attorney General interim decision reinstitutes the legal standards for asylum applications established in Matter of A-B- (2018 and 2021), effectively overruling the prior vacatur issued in Matter of A-B- III (2021). The opinion clarifies that applicants claiming persecution by private actors must demonstrate that their home government is unwilling or unable to control the persecutor. Citing recent Supreme Court precedent on statutory interpretation, the Attorney General concludes that these standards are properly resolved through case-by-case adjudication rather than rulemaking. The matter is remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Matter of A‑B‑ III should be overruled and the standards of Matter of A‑B‑ I and A‑B‑ II reinstated
- Whether immigration judges and the Board must apply the “unable or unwilling” standard as articulated in A‑B‑ I and A‑B‑ II for private persecution claims
Holdings
- The Attorney General overrules Matter of A‑B‑ III and reinstates the legal standards articulated in Matter of A‑B‑ I and Matter of A‑B‑ II.
- Immigration judges and the Board shall apply the “unable or unwilling” standard as set forth in A‑B‑ I and A‑B‑ II when evaluating private persecution claims.
Key quotations
“I hereby reinstitute the legal standards articulated in A‑B‑ I and A‑B‑ II, and overrule A‑B‑ III (and, by extension, Matter of A‑R‑C‑G‑ and any decision issued in reliance thereupon).” (207)
“A‑B‑ I used that language for good reason: It has long been well‑established that “persecution is something a government does,” and must be “inflicted either by the government of a country or by persons or an organization that the government was unable or unwilling to control.”” (208)
Factual background
Respondent, a Honduran citizen, sought asylum alleging persecution based on political opinion and membership in several particular social groups of Honduran women. She also claimed the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect her from a private abuser. The Immigration Judge denied relief, the Board affirmed, and the case was remanded from the Fifth Circuit.
Procedural history
The Immigration Judge denied asylum, the Board affirmed, the Fifth Circuit remanded, and the Attorney General reviewed the case, overruled Matter of A‑B‑ III and reinstated the earlier precedents.
Remand instructions
Remand to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the reinstated A‑B‑ I and A‑B‑ II standards.