Where the petitioners alleged that they feared being seriously physically harmed or killed in Peru due to their previous involvement with the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA) political party in that country, the court held that the BIA did not err in denying the petitioners’ claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. (Vila-Castro v. Garland, 8/8/23)

The undisputed record shows, however, that the Interior Minister of the government of Peru gave Vila-Castro a document that ordered the police in Peru to investigate the threatening letter and instructed Vila-Castro to deliver the document to the police. The record then further shows -- again, without dispute -- that Vila-Castro chose not to do so because the police "were taking too long" and so she "made a decision just to leave [her] country." Thus, we see no ground for concluding that the record compels the conclusion that the Peruvian government was either unwilling or unable to provide protection to the petitioners. See Barsoum v. Holder, 617 F.3d 73, 80 (1st Cir. 2010) (holding that the record did not compel such a conclusion when it showed that a petitioner "sought assistance from the police only once," then "never again sought their help," and otherwise had "not established that the police were actually unable or unwilling to protect him").