News & Insights

The Background

The case involved a woman from Honduras who applied for asylum in the United States. She argued that she feared persecution in Honduras because of her political opinions and because she was part of certain groups, including:

• Honduran women,
• Honduran women unable to leave a relationship,
• Honduran women resisting male domination,
• Honduran women with views supporting women’s autonomy.

She also claimed that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect her from her abuser.

An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her asylum, partly relying on Matter of A-B- (2018), which had made it more difficult for victims of private violence (like domestic abuse) to win asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, though it avoided citing A-B- after it was vacated in 2021.

The case went to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which sent it back for reconsideration. That gave the Attorney General an opportunity to weigh in.

The Core Legal Dispute: Private Violence and Asylum

The question was: When harm is inflicted by private individuals (like an abuser or gang member), can it count as “persecution” for asylum purposes?

• U.S. asylum law requires persecution to be “on account of” race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
• If the persecutor is not part of the government, the asylum seeker must show that their government is unwilling or unable to protect them.

The legal fight centered on how strictly to apply this test.

The Attorney General’s Decision

The Attorney General ruled that the earlier, stricter standards from Matter of A-B- I (2018) and A-B- II (2021) were the correct interpretation of the law. He overruled:

• Matter of A-B- III (2021), where Attorney General Garland had vacated the earlier restrictive rulings to allow for rulemaking.
• Matter of A-R-C-G- (2014), which had been the key case allowing certain domestic violence survivors to win asylum.

Why the Attorney General Reversed Course

1. Persecution must involve the government.
   He stressed that asylum law is built on the idea that persecution is something a government does—or something it allows to happen by showing total helplessness. Ordinary private violence usually does not qualify.
2. Past confusion was overstated.
   Some courts thought A-B- I created a new, harsher rule, but the Attorney General said it only clarified the long-standing “unable or unwilling” standard.
3. Case-by-case decisions, not rulemaking.
   The Attorney General argued that defining “particular social groups” (like women unable to leave abusive relationships) should be done through individual cases, not through broad regulations that never materialized.

What This Means Going Forward

• For asylum seekers: It is now much harder to win asylum based on domestic violence, gang violence, or other harm by private actors. Applicants must show not only that the harm is severe but also that their government is essentially powerless or complicit in allowing it.
• For lawyers and judges: Immigration Judges and the BIA must now follow A-B- I and II, which emphasize stricter limits on claims involving private violence. They cannot rely on A-B- III or A-R-C-G- anymore.
• For the immigration system: This decision represents a major policy swing back to the Trump-era interpretation of asylum law. It narrows eligibility, especially for women fleeing gender-based violence.

Bottom Line

In Matter of S-S-F-M- (2025), the Attorney General overruled A-B- III and reinstated the tougher standards of A-B- I and II. Survivors of domestic violence and other private harms face a much higher bar to prove asylum. Immigration Judges no longer have authority to apply the more generous precedents like A-R-C-G-.
This decision reshapes asylum law once again, underscoring how much U.S. asylum policy depends on the Attorney General’s interpretation rather than permanent legislative reform.