Reyna Alfaro-Zelaya v. Pamela Bondi

4th CircuitOct 31, 2025

Split Score

SplitScore: 73/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Vacated

The Fourth Circuit granted Reyna Elisa Alfaro-Zelaya’s petition for review, vacating the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision and remanding because the BIA failed to meaningfully consider extensive country-conditions evidence bearing on Alfaro-Zelaya’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. The majority held that ignoring such evidence was an abuse of discretion, while a dissent argued this ruling deepens an existing circuit split over whether generalized country-conditions evidence can satisfy an applicant’s burden without individualized proof.

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether country-conditions evidence, standing alone or given significant weight, can satisfy a non-citizen’s burden of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection, or whether the applicant must always produce individualized evidence of persecution or torture.

Circuit Positions

4th Circuit(this circuit)9th Circuit

Country-conditions evidence alone, or in combination with limited individualized facts, can satisfy the burden of proving likelihood of persecution or torture; failure to consider such evidence is reversible error.

1st Circuit2nd Circuit5th Circuit6th Circuit7th Circuit8th Circuit10th Circuit11th Circuit

Country-conditions evidence, without specific individualized proof, is insufficient; applicants must show a particularized, personal risk of persecution or torture beyond general country conditions.

Conflict Summary

Several circuits (1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th) have held that generalized country-conditions reports cannot, by themselves, establish the requisite individualized risk of persecution or torture, requiring applicants to present specific, personalized evidence. In contrast, the Fourth Circuit (in this case and earlier precedent) and the Ninth Circuit recognize that country-conditions evidence may, in appropriate circumstances, satisfy or decisively bolster the applicant’s burden, and that failure to engage with such evidence can constitute reversible error.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Reyna Elisa Alfaro-Zelaya (and derivative child E.J.A.Z.)
Appellee:Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Edith Leonor Sangueza and Anne Elizabeth Peterson, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies
Appellee:Matthew B. George, with Brian Boynton, Anthony P. Nicastro, and Yanal H. Yousef, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice

Opinion Document