Immigration – Asylum – Gang threats

Listen to this article

Where a petitioner and his family fled to the United States following death threats from a criminal gang in Colombia, a denial of asylum and withholding of removal should be upheld based on substantial evidence that the Colombian government was able to protect the petitioner and his family from the gang.

“A criminal gang issued multiple death threats to Jhon Eduardo Restrepo Castano and his family while he was working in his bakery in Colombia. After he reported the conduct to the authorities, the police stationed a guard at his workplace. Although the in-person death threats ended, the criminal gang continued the threats by phone. Fearful for their safety, Castano and his family fled to the United States in 2022 and eventually sought asylum and withholding of removal. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found that Castano did not qualify for these forms of relief because he could not establish that the Colombian government was unwilling or unable to protect him from the gang, and thus he could not demonstrate a government connection to the harm he had experienced. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Castano’s appeal.

“Castano now seeks this court’s review, arguing primarily that the IJ and BIA (together, ‘the agency’) erred in finding that the Colombian government was able to protect him from the criminal gang. Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision, we deny Castano’s petition. …

“Castano does not challenge the agency’s determination that the Gulf Clan is a private entity. Thus, the key question posed in this case is whether Castano demonstrated a government connection to the Gulf Clan’s actions by showing that Colombia was either unwilling or unable to protect him and his family from the gang’s death threats.

“The agency found, and the parties do not dispute, that Colombia was willing to protect Castano from the Gulf Clan. Castano contests, however, the agency’s determination that Colombia was able to protect him. After reviewing the record, we conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the IJ’s factual findings as to Colombia’s ability to protect Castano and his family. …

“Here, the police acted immediately after Castano reported the in-person threat by stationing a guard at his bakery. After the police took this step, the in-person threats ceased. Although we do not discount the fear Castano and his family experienced from the ongoing telephonic death threats, the agency appropriately considered the police’s quick and meaningful response to Castano’s initial complaint. As the federal government argues, this is substantial evidence supporting the IJ’s finding that the Colombian government is able to protect Castano. …

“Although the record here lacks details about the quality of the police investigation of the Gulf Clan’s actions, there is substantial evidence that the police ‘fruitfully’ responded to the actions known to them. After Castano initially reported the in-person and telephonic threats, the police posted a guard at the bakery and attempted to block future calls from the Gulf Clan to Castano and his family. Once the police stepped in, there were no more in-person threats. And while the telephonic threats did continue even after the police response, there is no evidence in the record of any attempt by Gulf Clan members to act upon the telephonic threats. Further, Castano could not point to any evidence that he reported the continued telephonic threats to the authorities after the guard took up the post at his bakery. …

“Further, the fact that Castano never received a formal response about the identity of the alleged perpetrators does not necessarily indicate that the police were not investigating. To be sure, the federal government conceded at oral argument before us that it would be very difficult for the Colombian police to catch the perpetrators, considering the size of the Gulf Clan, the motorcycle helmets worn by the gang members when they threatened Castano in person, and the unknown phone numbers used to make the telephonic threats. Nevertheless, there is probative evidence that the police’s response here was ‘fruitful’ with respect to the conduct that Castano definitively reported. …

“Accordingly, we hold that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the Colombian government was able to protect Castano and his family. Thus, we will not disturb the agency’s ruling that Castano failed to demonstrate a government nexus to the Gulf Clan’s threats and, for that reason, he was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal.”

Restrepo Castano v. Bondi (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-248-25) (21 pages) (Rikelman, J.) Ronald L. Abramson, with whom Shaheen & Gordon was on brief, for the petitioners; John F. Stanton, with whom Yaakov M. Roth and John S. Hogan were on brief, for the respondent (Docket No. 24-2117) (Nov. 26, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.