Francisco Lemus-Arita v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 854 F.3d 476

Petitioner Francisco Lemus-Arita, a Guatemalan national, reentered the U.S. illegally in January 2012 and conceded removability; he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
After returning briefly to Guatemala in late 2011, he learned his cousin Oscar had been killed (rumored involvement in kidnapping) and heard family rumors that a vigilante group called Anti-Secuestro sought him.
Lemus-Arita conceded the threats were never made to him directly, he never saw members of the group, and he was never physically harmed; he did not report threats to police due to suspected police collusion.
Lemus-Arita’s sister Evelyn testified about masked armed men visiting and threatening her and trucks with political symbols in the village; the IJ found her only partially credible due to inconsistencies and her pending asylum application.
The IJ found Lemus-Arita credible but concluded he failed to establish past persecution or an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution; the BIA affirmed. The court denied review, upholding the agency’s determinations and declining to disturb credibility findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BIA applied correct standard of review to IJ’s finding that fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable	Lemus-Arita: BIA reviewed objective-reasonableness for clear error, requiring remand	Government: BIA used de novo review for legal issues and clear-error for facts	Court: BIA did not misapply standards; de novo review applies to objective-reasonableness and no remand required
Whether petitioner established past persecution	Lemus-Arita: threats and family-targeting show past persecution	Government: threats were secondhand, unfulfilled, and not sufficiently menacing	Court: Substantial evidence supports finding no past persecution (threats not so menacing)
Whether petitioner demonstrated a well-founded (objectively reasonable) fear of future persecution	Lemus-Arita: sister’s testimony and threats support objective risk	Government: lack of direct threats, passage of years, and speculative risk	Court: Fear not objectively reasonable; credibility of sister limited and evidence speculative; asylum denied
Eligibility for withholding of removal / CAT relief	Lemus-Arita: same facts support withholding and CAT	Government: higher standard for withholding; CAT claim waived on appeal	Court: Withholding denied (higher standard unmet); CAT claim waived by petitioner

Gutierrez-Vidal v. Holder, 709 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2013) (review of BIA and IJ decisions)
Agha v. Holder, 743 F.3d 609 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of legal determinations)
Fofana v. Holder, 704 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 2013) (substantial-evidence standard for asylum decisions)
La v. Holder, 701 F.3d 566 (8th Cir. 2012) (threats and persecution analysis)
Setiadi v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2006) (threats alone generally insufficient for past persecution)
Flores v. Holder, 699 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2012) (family harm relevant to past persecution analysis)
Ladyha v. Holder, 588 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 2009) (insufficient threat at knifepoint for persecution)
Valiente-Cifuentes v. Holder, [citation="438 F. App'x 532"] (8th Cir. 2011) (written death threats insufficient absent harm)
Zhuang v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2006) (subjective and objective components of well-founded fear)
Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 1997) (objective-reasonableness standard)
Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2002) (objective fear must have basis in reality)
Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2005) (deference to IJ credibility findings)
Chakhov v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2016) (weight afforded to IJ credibility determinations)
Fofanah v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2006) (IJ best positioned to assess witness credibility)
Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (withholding requires clear probability of threat)