Benson Nduwueze Okpara v. U.S. Attorney General
20-13269
| 11th Cir. | Jul 2, 2021Background
- Benson N. Okpara petitioned to reverse the BIA’s affirmance of an IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal under the INA; he did not challenge the CAT denial on appeal.
- Okpara testified he was beaten in Nigeria in 1982 and that his brother and father later died (allegedly by poisoning); he asserts these events and his Christian faith (and membership in a mixed‑race family) show persecution.
- His evidence consisted largely of his own testimony; he offered no objective proof linking the family deaths or the 1982 beating to religious motives or to threats directed at him.
- The BIA found the 1982 beating an isolated incident by a single actor (not persecution), no threats were shown against Okpara himself, and there was no evidence Nigeria would be unable or unwilling to protect him.
- The record also showed his mother remained in Nigeria unharmed and that a large portion of Nigeria’s population is Christian; on that basis the BIA concluded his fear of future persecution was not well‑founded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Okpara suffered past persecution on account of religion | The 1982 beating and the alleged poisonings of family members show past persecution for being Christian | The beating was an isolated incident by one person; family deaths were not shown to be threats against Okpara or tied to religion | BIA affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding no past persecution |
| Whether Okpara has a well‑founded fear of future persecution or can reasonably relocate within Nigeria | He fears return because of religion and family targeting and cannot safely relocate | The beating was ~40 years earlier; his mother remained unharmed; Nigeria’s sizeable Christian population and no evidence of targeting undercut a reasonable fear | BIA affirmed: fear not objectively reasonable; relocation reasonable |
| Whether membership in a mixed‑race family supports asylum/withholding | Mixed‑race family membership would subject him to persecution in Nigeria | No objective evidence that mixed‑race families are targeted in Nigeria | BIA affirmed: no evidence supports this claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2009) (review limited to the BIA’s decision when it issues its own opinion)
- Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009) (substantial‑evidence standard for reviewing BIA factual findings)
- Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2006) (record viewed in light most favorable to agency; draw reasonable inferences for agency)
- Chen v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 463 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2006) (agency findings not reversed unless record compels a different result)
- Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (asylum requires past persecution or a well‑founded fear on account of a protected ground)
- Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005) (persecution is an "extreme concept"; mere harassment is insufficient)
- Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2013) (harms to family members do not prove persecution of applicant absent threats to applicant)
- Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 2010) (applicant alleging private‑actor persecution must show state unable or unwilling to protect)
- Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (well‑founded fear requires subjective credibility and objective reasonableness)
- Diallo v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 596 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2010) (consider cumulative incidents; past persecution creates rebuttable presumption of future fear)