Edier Rodriguez Bedoya v. William Barr, 981 F.3d 240

Background:

Petitioner Edier de Jesus Rodriguez Bedoya is a retired Colombian National Police officer who investigated FARC in the 1990s; a friend (Correa) who protected him was later killed by FARC.
After retiring in 2012, Bedoya received multiple FARC-branded written threats (Jan–Mar 2013) and three threatening text messages (May 2013) referencing prior events and his daughter’s location.
Local prosecutors did not open an investigation after Bedoya reported threats; fearing for his family, Bedoya and his family entered the U.S. May 27, 2013 and applied for asylum in November 2013.
An IJ found Bedoya credible and corroborated but denied asylum, concluding the written/text threats and the long gap from 1996 to 2013 did not constitute past persecution and that Bedoya had not shown a well-founded fear of future persecution.
The BIA affirmed, agreeing the threats were written and there was no in-person approach; it declined to address nexus, internal relocation, or government protection; Bedoya appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
The Fourth Circuit held the BIA erred: written and electronic death threats (including threats to family) can constitute past persecution and, having found past persecution, Bedoya is entitled to a presumption of a well‑founded fear of future persecution; the case was remanded.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether written notes and text-message death threats constitute past persecution	Bedoya: multiple FARC-branded written threats and texts targeting him and family amount to past persecution	Govt/BIA: threats were written, no in-person approach or physical harm, long time gap, could be coincidental	Court: Reversed BIA — written/text threats (esp. threatening family and referencing prior killings) can be past persecution
Whether past persecution yields a presumption of a well‑founded fear of future persecution	Bedoya: past persecution triggers presumption of future fear	BIA: placed burden on Bedoya to prove future fear because it found no past persecution	Court: If past persecution established, presumption applies; BIA erred in shifting burden; vacated future‑fear ruling and remanded
Whether nexus, internal relocation, and gov’t inability/unwillingness to protect were shown	Bedoya: threats tied to his status as former police officer and FARC’s history of vengeance; relocation/protection unreasonable	Govt: BIA/IJ did not find nexus or inability to protect; argued threats insufficiently connected to protected ground	Court: Did not decide nexus/protection; remanded for BIA to consider these issues in light of the presumption and past‑persecution finding
Withholding of removal and CAT relief	Bedoya: sought withholding and CAT (but did not brief CAT on appeal)	Govt: withholding depends on asylum outcome; CAT separately considered	Court: If asylum eligibility is found on remand, BIA should reconsider withholding; CAT claim waived on appeal for failure to brief

Key Cases Cited

Zavaleta-Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2017) (threat of death can constitute persecution; written threats recognized)
Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (written death threats and threats to family can establish past persecution)
Tairou v. Whitaker, 909 F.3d 702 (4th Cir. 2018) (standard of review; threat of death alone can be persecution)
Hernandez Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015) (threat of death qualifies as persecution)
Baharon v. Holder, 588 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2009) (threats to close relatives are an important factor in persecution analysis)
Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484 (4th Cir. 2006) (past persecution gives rise to a presumption of a well‑founded fear of future persecution)
Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 2017) (asylum ineligibility carries over to withholding eligibility)
Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2013) (issues not raised in opening brief are forfeited)