8th Circuit denies asylum petition from Guatemalan mother and children, ruling she failed to show…
Angelica Romero-Romero v. Todd Blanche
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
8th Circuit denies asylum petition from Guatemalan mother and children, ruling she failed to show Guatemala's government was unwilling or unable to protect her from a private threat.
Why it matters
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the asylum petition of Angelica Romero-Romero, a Guatemalan citizen, and her children. The court found that substantial evidence supported the immigration agency's conclusion that she had not demonstrated the Guatemalan government was unwilling or unable to protect her from the private actor she feared. The court also refused to consider her argument that reporting the abuse would have been futile, because that argument had not been raised during the earlier agency proceedings.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Angelica Romero-Romero and her children, who face removal to Guatemala. More broadly, it reinforces for other asylum seekers that failure to report abuse to home country authorities, and failure to raise legal arguments during agency proceedings, can be decisive barriers to obtaining asylum in the United States.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 15, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 15, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 15, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Angelica Romero-Romero and her children, all Guatemalan citizens, petitioned for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld an immigration judge's denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The central question was whether Romero-Romero had shown that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to protect her from the private actor she feared. The court applied a substantial evidence standard of review, meaning it would only overturn the agency's factual finding if the record compelled the opposite conclusion. The court found that the agency's determination was well supported. Two key facts weighed against Romero-Romero: she had never reported the abuse to Guatemalan authorities, and she did not present documentary evidence showing that Guatemala had failed to protect evangelical Christians as a group. Romero-Romero argued on appeal that it would have been futile to report the abuse to authorities. The court refused to address this argument on the merits because it had not been raised during the earlier administrative proceedings. Under the legal doctrine of exhaustion, courts generally require that arguments be presented to the agency first before a federal court will consider them. The court noted that the adverse finding on the government's willingness or ability to protect her was enough by itself to defeat both her asylum and withholding of removal claims. No dissent was noted in the opinion, which was issued as an unpublished per curiam decision by a three-judge panel.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-2770 ___________________________ Angelica Romero-Romero; D.R.R.; K.R.R.; Ismael Romero-Romero; Liseth Claudia Romero-Romero; Judith Mischel Romero-Romero lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States1 lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: June 29, 2026 Filed: July 15, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, L.R. SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ 1 Todd Blanche is automatically substituted as respondent in place of Pamela Bondi pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizens Angelica Romero-Romero (Romero-Romero) and her children D.R.R, K.R.R., Ismael Romero-Romero, Judith Mischel Romero-Romero, and Liseth Claudia Romero-Romero petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).2 The BIA affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Romero-Romero challenges the agency’s determination that she failed to show the Guatemalan government was or would be unable or unwilling to control the private actor she fears. We previously denied the government’s motion to summarily deny the petition on timeliness grounds, and we decline to revisit that ruling. As to the merits of Romero-Romero’s claims, we conclude substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that she failed to show the Guatemalan government was or would be unable or unwilling to control the private actor she fears, considering her failure to report the abuse to authorities and the lack of documentary evidence indicating that the government had failed to protect evangelical Christians. See Galloso v. Barr, 954 F.3d 1189, 1191-93 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining the standard of review; affirming the adverse finding when petitioner testified she had never contacted police to report the domestic abuse, and she relied on general country reports that did not support her particular situation); Valioukevitch v. INS, 251 F.3d 747, 749 (8th Cir. 2001) (upholding adverse finding because petitioner had not shown the government was unable or willing to control the religious majority, and country reports indicated the government respected its citizens’ guarantee of religious freedom). Furthermore, while she argues it would have been futile to report the abuse, we agree with the government that her argument is unexhausted because it is based on facts and 2 D.R.R, K.R.R., Ismael, and Judith were derivative applicants on Romero- Romero’s asylum application. Liseth filed a separate application, but her claims were based on the same facts as Romero-Romero’s claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A)- (B); Fuentes v. Barr, 969 F.3d 865, 868 n.1 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). -2- arguments that were not presented in the counseled agency proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (limiting judicial review to administrative record), (d)(1) (requiring administrative exhaustion); Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 423 (2023) (discussing exhaustion requirement); Essel v. Garland, 89 F.4th 686, 691 (8th Cir. 2023) (enforcing court-imposed exhaustion requirement). The agency’s adverse finding regarding the Guatemalan government’s ability or willingness to protect her was dispositive of the claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Coreas-Chavez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 413, 416 (8th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -3-
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.