From the Desk of the Han Yin, Manager
May 9, 2026
Ms. “DG” was abused and threatened by her ex-partner in Mexico; so she fled and arrived in
the United States in 2023.
The BIA denied relief, ruling that, Yes, she had been “severely harmed,” but there was no
“objective evidence that he would be aware of her return to Mexico or that he would be
actively looking for her.”
There was no real evidence that the ex-partner “currently has any interest in her.”
There was no “objective” evidence showing that he has “any present continuing
interest in harming her.”
The BIA said, in essence, “Your ex-partner has forgotten about you. Prove he has
not.” Matter of D-G-B-L-, 29 I&N Dec 392 [BIA 2026]
= = = = = = = = =
Moral Of the Story:
Applicants must show not only that they were harmed in the past, but also that they continue
to face a real risk if they return. Without clear and convincing evidence of ongoing danger,
even strong cases may be denied.
Applicants should be prepared to answer questions such as:
● Is there anyone in your home country who believes your persecutor is still interested
in harming you?
● Did that person write a letter of support for you? Why not?
● If no one in your country believes your persecutor has a present, continuing interest in
harming you, why should I, the Judge, believe that?
Careful preparation and strong supporting evidence can make a significant difference in the outcome of an asylum case.