GILCA v. Holder, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10444

Gilca, a Moldovan citizen of Roma ethnicity, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after overstaying a J-1 visa and returning to Moldova.
IJ found him generally credible but concluded he did not prove past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, ethnicity, or political opinion, and denied all relief.
Petitioner testified to harassment, threats, and two incidents of violence tied to his Roma status and anti-communist views, plus police detentions; none were shown to be government-sponsored or -condoned.
Government reports cited by the IJ indicated some harassment of Roma and opposition members but did not demonstrate a government link or a pervasive pattern against him personally.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision; Gilca challenged the order in a petition for judicial review in the First Circuit.
On appeal, the court applied the substantial-evidence standard to review factual findings and examined both past persecution and well-founded fear branches, along with withholding and CAT claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is substantial evidence of past persecution	Gilca argues past persecution based on Roma/anti-communist stance.	HOLDER argues no nexus and no governmental attribution or control of the harms.	No substantial evidence of past persecution; threats and incidents insufficiently linked to government or protected ground.
Whether there is a well-founded fear of future persecution	Fear based on Roma status and political opinions with potential pattern of abuse.	Pattern of abuse not sufficiently pervasive or systemic; fear not objectively reasonable.	Well-founded fear not established; lack of systemic pattern and other supportive evidence.
Whether petitioner is eligible for withholding of removal	If asylum denied, withholding should be available upon a clear probability of persecution.	Without asylum-level fear, withholding is not met.	Denied; no clear probability of future persecution shown.
Whether CAT protection is warranted or properly argued	CAT protection as alternative relief.	CAT claim inadequately developed on the record.	Waived/insufficient argument to support CAT relief.
Whether any procedural prejudice occurred due to pro se representation	Pro se status prejudiced understanding of procedures.	No basis to vacate based on representation alone; not raised before BIA.	Not entertained; arguments not preserved for review.

Sok v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.2008) (threats can support past persecution but require some harm)
Ruiz v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 31 (1st Cir.2008) (degree of harm matters for persecution analysis)
Elias-Zacarias v. INS, 502 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court 1992) (establishes substantial-evidence standard for agency findings)
Morgan v. Holder, 634 F.3d 53 (1st Cir.2011) (abuse by non-governmental actors requires government linkage or inability to control)
Nikijuluw v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 115 (1st Cir.2005) (substantial-evidence review standard)
Attia v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.2007) (factors used to assess fear and returns to homeland evidence)
López Pérez v. Holder, 587 F.3d 456 (1st Cir.2009) (subjective fear must be coupled with objective reasonableness)
Rasiah v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2009) (well-founded fear standard for pattern-of-persecution claims is demanding)
Ang v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.2005) (threats alone do not compel asylum without more context)
Harutyunyan v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 64 (1st Cir.2005) (persecution requires government action or acquiescence)