Case Overview in Matter of F-B-A-
In Matter of F-B-A-, the BIA clarified that the “unique barriers” to reporting harm for children do not apply to adults, even if they experienced childhood abuse. The decision determined that Russian authorities are not shown to be unable or unwilling to protect the respondent. It also found that internal relocation within Russia is a reasonable option. As a result, the respondent is ineligible for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection.
Key Facts in Matter of F-B-A-
The respondent is an unmarried adult woman, a native of Tajikistan and citizen of Russia, who fears persecution by her parents, brother, and cousin due to her resistance to Islam and subsequent conversion to Russian Orthodox Christianity. She described a history of abuse beginning in childhood and continuing into adulthood, tied to her religious resistance and conversion. She testified that family members threatened to kill her for apostasy and that her brother threatened to behead her because she had brought shame upon the family.
The Immigration Judge found her testimony credible and determined that, supported by corroborating evidence and country conditions materials, she established a well-founded fear of persecution by her family on account of religion. The Department of Homeland Security did not dispute that she likely faced harm or death from her family but challenged whether the Russian government would be unable or unwilling to protect her and whether internal relocation within Russia would be reasonable.
The record showed that as an adult she traveled to multiple cities away from her family and at times lived independently, yet she did not seek assistance from police or other authorities. She argued that her family had connections with local police and that reporting would have been futile or dangerous. She also asserted that her strict religious upbringing and prior sexual abuse impaired her ability to seek protection.
Country-conditions evidence documented violence against women by Muslim family members in certain regions and instances of local authorities returning women to their families. However, the record did not specifically address interfaith violence or state protection for converts to Russian Orthodoxy, which is the majority religion and maintains a close relationship with the Russian government.
Procedural History in Matter of F-B-A-
The respondent sought asylum under INA § 208(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A) (2024). She also applied for withholding of removal and CAT protection due to feared persecution in Russia by her family stemming from her religious conversion.
On March 14, 2025, the IJ granted her application for asylum, finding her credible and concluding she had a well‑founded fear of persecution.
DHS appealed, challenging the IJ’s conclusions on government inability/unwillingness and on the unreasonableness of internal relocation.
On November 7, 2025, the BIA sustained DHS’s appeal, vacated the IJ’s grant of asylum, and ordered the respondent removed.
On November 10, 2025, the respondent filed a timely motion to reconsider. She also filed an addendum on November 19, 2025, which the Board considered in its entirety.
Invoking its authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2026), the BIA granted the motion to reconsider for the limited purpose of clarifying its prior reasoning but, upon reconsideration, again sustained DHS’s appeal and ordered the respondent removed.
The BIA also reconsidered and reaffirmed its prior denial of CAT protection, concluding that the record did not establish a likelihood of torture with government consent or acquiescence and that internal relocation remained relevant and available.
The decision vacated the previously issued stay of removal and reinstated a final order of removal to Russia.
Legal Issues Presented in Matter of F-B-A-
The decision addresses several interrelated issues under U.S. immigration law:
- Whether the respondent established that the Russian government was unable or unwilling to protect her from persecution by private actors (her family) due to her conversion to Russian Orthodox Christianity, as required for asylum and withholding of removal based on private harm.
- Whether the respondent demonstrated that internal relocation within Russia would be unreasonable, given the size of the country, her majority‑religion status, and the record evidence of her family’s ability and willingness to locate her.
- Whether the “unique barriers” to reporting harm recognized for child respondents in Matter of C‑G‑T‑, 28 I&N Dec. 740 (BIA 2023), extend to adults who were abused as children and later fear harm as adults.
- Whether the record established eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture, specifically that it is more likely than not the respondent would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of Russian public officials, and whether the possibility of internal relocation undermined a CAT claim.
- Whether the IJ’s factual findings on government protection and internal relocation were “clearly erroneous” under the applicable standard of review.
Decision Summary in Matter of F-B-A-
Outcome
The BIA granted the motion to reconsider solely to clarify its reasoning, but again sustained DHS’s appeal, vacated the IJ’s March 14, 2025 asylum grant, and ordered the respondent removed to Russia.
Holding
- The unique barriers to reporting harm discussed in Matter of C‑G‑T‑ apply to children, especially young children, and do not extend to adults, even if they experienced abuse as children.
- The respondent did not establish that the Russian government was unable or unwilling to protect her from her family’s religiously motivated harm, given her adult status, ability to travel and communicate, majority‑religion membership, and lack of evidence of police complicity or helplessness.
- The IJ clearly erred in finding that internal relocation within Russia would not be reasonable, in light of Russia’s size, the respondent’s majority‑religion status, limited evidence of ongoing family pursuit, and the record as a whole.
- Because she failed to prove both government inability/unwillingness and the unreasonableness of relocation, the respondent is ineligible for asylum and necessarily for withholding of removal.
- The respondent also did not meet the standard for CAT protection, given the availability of safe relocation and the absence of evidence that public officials would consent or acquiesce to her torture.
Orders
- Motion to reconsider: granted.
- DHS appeal: sustained.
- Prior stay of removal: vacated.
- IJ’s March 14, 2025 grant of asylum: vacated.
- Respondent: ordered removed from the United States to Russia.
- Notice: The decision includes statutory warnings regarding civil monetary penalties under INA § 274D (8 U.S.C. § 1324d) for failure to depart and criminal penalties under INA § 276(a) (8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)) for re‑entry after removal.
Legal Reasoning and Analysis in Matter of F-B-A-
Clarification of Matter of C‑G‑T‑ and child versus adult barriers
In Matter of F‑B‑A‑, the Board states that these barriers relate to being a child. They do not apply to adults, even if those adults experienced childhood abuse. The respondent argued that her strict religious upbringing created psychological barriers. She claimed these barriers made reporting abuse seem futile or dangerous.
However, the Board finds that the reasoning in Matter of C‑G‑T‑ does not apply to adults. Adults can travel independently, live apart from family, and communicate with authorities. Therefore, the Board rejects the argument that her failure to seek help as an adult is excused. This is not supported by the child-focused framework of Matter of C‑G‑T‑.
Government inability or unwillingness to protect
The Board reiterates that whether a government is unable or unwilling to protect an individual from private persecution is a factual question reviewed for clear error.
The respondent never reported her family’s threats and abuse to Russian authorities, despite multiple opportunities as an adult to do so in different cities and while outside her family’s direct control.
The Board acknowledges that a failure to report is “not necessarily fatal” to a persecution claim, but emphasizes that the reasonableness of not seeking protection is a significant factor that must be weighed together with other evidence.
Here, the Board finds that the respondent’s generalized claim that her family had police connections in her home town is not supported by evidence showing that her family could meaningfully influence authorities across Russia, particularly given that her family members are Muslim, while she converted to Russian Orthodox Christianity and thereby joined the majority religion with privileged status closely aligned with the state.
The Board finds that the IJ clearly erred in relying heavily on domestic‑violence country conditions evidence to conclude that Russian authorities would be unable or unwilling to protect the respondent from religiously motivated family violence.
The Board notes that the documentary evidence she submitted about women suffering violence at the hands of Muslim families and being returned to those families does not speak directly to interfaith violence or to how Russian authorities respond to converts to Russian Orthodoxy who fear harm from Muslim relatives.
Citing Mejia‑Alvarenga, Sanchez‑Amador, and Matter of C‑G‑T‑, the Board underscores that a mere subjective belief that reporting would be futile, combined with general evidence of some law‑enforcement ineffectiveness, is insufficient to establish government inability or unwillingness.
Internal relocation analysis
The Board reviews the IJ’s internal relocation findings under a clear‑error standard, consistent with Matter of F‑R‑A‑ and Matter of D‑I‑M‑.
Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii) and § 1208.13(b)(3)(i), because the feared persecution is by private actors, the respondent bears the burden to show that internal relocation would be unreasonable.
The IJ had relied on a single article indicating that residents must register addresses and that family members might file false police reports, possibly with police assistance, to locate the respondent anywhere in Russia.
The Board recognizes the respondent’s prior relocation attempt and subsequent discovery by her family. However, this alone does not demonstrate that relocation is an impractical long-term solution in a vast country like Russia, especially considering her majority-religion status.
The Board notes insufficient evidence of her family’s ongoing search for her. Over two years had elapsed since their last threat.
Applying the Anderson v. City of Bessemer City clear‑error standard, the Board concludes that, on the record as a whole, the IJ’s finding that relocation would not be reasonable leaves the Board with a “definite and firm conviction” that a mistake was made.
Asylum and withholding of removal eligibility
Because the respondent did not establish either (1) that the Russian government is unable or unwilling to protect her or (2) that internal relocation within Russia would be unreasonable, she cannot meet the requirements for asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii).
Withholding of removal necessitates a higher standard. It also relies on the same key factors of government inability/unwillingness and reasonable internal relocation options.
Relying on Gonzales‑Veliz and the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2), the Board holds that failure to meet the asylum standard on these grounds necessarily precludes eligibility for withholding of removal.
Consistent with INS v. Bagamasbad, the Board does not address other arguments regarding the respondent’s eligibility that would not change the outcome.
CAT protection and internal relocation
For CAT protection, the respondent must show that it is more likely than not that she would be subjected to torture in Russia by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.
The Board concludes that the record fails to meet the necessary standard. It does not show that officials would engage in her torture, particularly since the respondent did not prove that authorities would be unable or unwilling to protect her from her family.
Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii), the possibility of internal relocation is relevant evidence against a likelihood of future torture, and the Board finds that such relocation is available within Russia.
Citing Tzompantzi‑Salazar, the Board clarifies that, for CAT, the inquiry is whether safe relocation is possible, not whether it is reasonable, comfortable, or convenient; the ultimate burden remains on the applicant to establish a likelihood of torture.
The Board cites Matter of O‑A‑R‑G‑G to clarify that CAT “acquiescence” demands more government involvement than the asylum standard. As the respondent did not meet the asylum criteria, she also fails to prove CAT-level acquiescence.
Because the record “permits only one resolution” on the key factual issues, consistent with Pullman‑Standard and Ball, the Board concludes that remand is unnecessary and denies CAT protection on the existing record.
Practical Implications in Matter of F-B-A-
For asylum and withholding applicants fearing private actors
Matter of F‑B‑A‑ emphasizes that adult applicants must provide solid proof that reporting to authorities is unsafe. Mere subjective beliefs or general country conditions are insufficient.
Adults with a history of childhood abuse cannot use the child-specific framework from Matter of C-G-T- as an excuse. Adjudicators will consider their adult capabilities, including travel, independence, and communication with authorities.
Applicants must record efforts to seek police protection, detailing reports and responses. If no reports exist, provide evidence-based explanations of local dynamics or official complicity.
Internal relocation and large countries
In vast nations such as Russia, internal relocation is often seen as feasible. This is especially true for applicants from majority or protected groups with little evidence of ongoing persecution.
Relying on isolated articles or speculative claims does not prove relocation is unreasonable. Applicants must provide specific evidence of ongoing persecution efforts.
If a considerable time has elapsed since the last threat or incident, this may be considered. Additionally, lack of evidence for ongoing interest from persecutors can counter claims of likely persecution.
Religion‑based claims in majority‑religion contexts
The decision indicates that converts to the majority religion may struggle to prove state protection against minority persecution. Their privileged status complicates claims of state unwillingness to protect them.
Applicants in comparable situations must show that state institutions are biased against converts. They cannot rely solely on evidence of community violence or localized abuses.
CAT protection standards
Matter of F‑B‑A‑ emphasizes that CAT protection necessitates evidence of likely torture with official involvement beyond the asylum standard. Additionally, the option for safe internal relocation counters the claim for CAT relief.
If an applicant fails to demonstrate that authorities cannot protect them from private harm, proving official acquiescence in torture becomes difficult. Establishing government unwillingness or inability is crucial for such claims.
Documentation and compliance considerations
For practitioners and applicants:
- Gather specific evidence on policing and protection for the relevant protected ground, such as interfaith violence against converts. Focus on local conditions rather than general domestic violence issues.
- Document any efforts to relocate internally, the methods persecutors used to find the applicant, and evidence of ongoing pursuit.
- Argue that relocation is unreasonable by considering the country’s size and demographics. Support your claims with credible reports and expert evidence.
- Differentiate between circumstances in childhood and adulthood, noting that trauma can persist. Adjudicators will examine adult agency and protection options.
How can an immigration lawyer from the Immigration Professional Association help?
An immigration lawyer from the Immigration Professional Association can assess if an asylum or CAT claim meets current standards. This involves evaluating government protection and the practicality of internal relocation as outlined in Matter of F-B-A-.
Our attorney can assist in collecting and structuring evidence of law enforcement interactions and attempts to obtain state protection. They can also document credible reasons why reporting was genuinely dangerous or futile for the applicant.
An attorney can create a customized internal-relocation analysis with country-conditions research and expert assistance. This analysis will demonstrate when relocation is unsafe or impractical, especially in large countries or areas with extensive persecutor reach.
Legal professionals should present specific evidence regarding state treatment of converts and interfaith violence. They should avoid relying on generalized human-rights or domestic-violence reports.
In CAT cases, an immigration lawyer can assess if the evidence indicates a likelihood of torture with government acquiescence. They can also recommend necessary documentation, expert declarations, or witness statements to satisfy the higher burden.
Attorneys at the Immigration Professional Association can track changes in BIA and federal court precedents. They ensure that filings and legal arguments align with decisions like Matter of F-B-A-.
