Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Immigration – asylum — CAT

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 26, 2014//

Immigration – asylum — CAT

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 26, 2014//

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Civil

Immigration – asylum — CAT

Although the BIA failed to properly distinguish between an alien’s asylum CAT, and withholding of removal claims, the denial of relief is affirmed where the alien failed to demonstrate relief under any of the claims.

“The Board’s analysis in this regard was less than stellar. Although it demonstrated that it had considered Antia-Perea’s evidentiary submissions, the Board neglected to set forth the standards against which those submissions were measured for each form of relief. Nonetheless, it is clear from the Board’s discussion that it denied Antia-Perea’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal because it concluded that the harm Antia-Perea feared was too speculative to merit relief. This is a valid and rational basis on which to deny both types of claim. Asylum applicants who have not been persecuted in the past may demonstrate eligibility for relief only by showing a fear of future persecution ‘that is subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.’ Georgieva v. Holder, 751 F.3d 514, 522 (7th Cir. 2014). The objective component requires the applicant to prove either a reasonable probability that he will be singled out for persecution or a pattern or practice against a particular group to which he belongs. Id. at 522–23. Similarly, an applicant seeking withholding of removal must demonstrate a ‘clear probability’ of harm by showing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that he will suffer persecution if removed. Hassan, 571 F.3d at 644. This ‘clear probability’ requirement is ‘more stringent’ than the requirements for asylum eligibility. Id. Thus, the Board’s conclusion that Antia-Perea’s evidence did not demonstrate that the Super Cartel was likely to become aware of his daughter’s employment with ICE necessarily undermined both of these claims.”

Petitions Denied.

12-3641, 13-1228, 13-1895 & 13-2737 Antia-Perea v. Holder

On Petitions for Review of Final Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Dow, J.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests