Guevara-Serrano: Credible Abuse and Threats Compelled a Finding That Reporting Was Futile

The absence of a police report did not defeat an asylum applicant’s government-protection showing on this record. In Guevara-Serrano v. Bondi, No. 23-4420 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2026), the Ninth Circuit held that credible threats, the abuser’s conduct and the surrounding evidence compelled the conclusion that reporting would have been futile.

Judge Schroeder wrote the published majority opinion. Judge Friedland concurred separately, disagreeing with the majority’s account of which other issues the agency had decided. That disagreement matters to the remand’s scope.

Credible testimony described severe abuse and a reporting threat

The Honduran applicant described repeated beatings by a gang-member partner, including a stabbing. The abuse included attacks connected to her church attendance. Her partner threatened to kill her if she reported him.

The record also described his arrest after an assault on a man and release the following day. Together with the evidence about violence against women, that episode mattered to whether she could realistically obtain protection for the abuse she faced. The agency nevertheless relied on her failure to report the beatings when rejecting the unable-or-unwilling showing. Guevara-Serrano, opinion at 5–8.

The majority evaluated why no report had been made

The opinion applied the principle that failure to report private persecution is not dispositive when reporting would be futile or dangerous. The inquiry required the individual circumstances and country evidence, rather than a rule that an applicant must first seek police assistance regardless of risk.

The credible threat and the actual response to the abuser’s other violence supported the applicant’s explanation. The majority concluded that the record compelled a finding of futility. Because that conclusion resolved the government-protection error, it did not need the alternative argument that the agency had failed to consider all the country materials. Guevara-Serrano at 8–10.

The majority returned the remaining asylum and withholding issues

The majority read the BIA’s denial as resting only on the unable-or-unwilling ground. It therefore sent the case back for the agency to consider the remaining asylum and withholding requirements under the corrected government-protection analysis.

It declined to address the CAT challenge because the applicant had not raised it before the BIA and it was therefore unexhausted. The remand and CAT disposition were separate parts of the result; the successful government-protection argument did not itself complete the other relief inquiries. Guevara-Serrano at 10–11.

The concurrence read the agency’s adoption more broadly

Judge Friedland thought the BIA’s adoption of the immigration judge’s decision also incorporated its nexus determination. She explained that position through Matter of Burbano and the circuit’s adoption cases. She would reach the nexus issue and conclude that religion was a reason for the persecution under the withholding standard.

That nexus analysis belongs to the concurrence, not the majority’s holding. Preserving the distinction avoids turning a separate judge’s reasoning into an agency finding or a panel resolution that did not occur. Guevara-Serrano, Friedland concurrence at 11–14.

The practical preparation lesson is to explain why reporting was dangerous or futile through the applicant’s actual circumstances and reliable supporting evidence. Our guide addresses documenting that explanation when no police report exists.