Hazret Nanic v. Loretta E. Lynch
793 F.3d 945
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Hazret Nanic and his wife, Bosnian/Croatian citizens, entered the U.S. on visitor visas in November 2006 and applied for asylum and withholding of removal in June 2007; DHS charged removal for visa overstay.
- Nanic is a practicing Muslim who rejects the regional label “Bosniak,” identifies as Bosnian, and advocates a unified Bosnia.
- He testified to two incidents in the mid-1990s involving Croatian police beatings/interrogation, harassment of his daughters at school, threats from unidentified friends, and alleged surveillance/questioning by secret police; he also cited murders of acquaintances as evidence of danger.
- The immigration judge denied relief after a hearing; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding no past persecution, no well-founded fear of future persecution, and no due-process violation in admission of an expert’s testimony or consideration of an asylum-officer assessment.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and due process and concluded the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and that Nanic received due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Past persecution | Nanic: beatings, detentions, harassment of daughters, secret police questioning amount to past persecution | DHS/Board: incidents were minor, isolated, and do not rise to persecution | Denied: incidents were insufficient to establish past persecution (substantial evidence) |
| Well-founded fear of future persecution | Nanic: inability to identify as "Bosnian," threats, murders of associates show objective risk | DHS/Board: killings occurred during wartime/military action; family remains safely in Bosnia; Nanic returned post-2000 without harm; expert testified country relatively peaceful | Denied: fear not objectively reasonable; substantial evidence supports Board's view |
| Admission of expert testimony (MacQueen) / notice | Nanic: late identification of expert violated Immigration Court Practice Manual and denied fair hearing | DHS/Board: testimony rebutted Nanic; ample notice (months) occurred; rule likely inapplicable to rebuttal | Denied: no due-process violation; no unfair surprise; admission permissible |
| Consideration of asylum-officer "Assessment to Refer" | Nanic: assessment finding lack of credibility was unreliable and prejudicial | DHS/Board: any error harmless because IJ independently found Nanic credible and other evidence undermined the assessment | Denied: no prejudice; IJ found Nanic credible despite assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (established subjective and objective standard for well-founded fear)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
- Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975 (brief detention/physical harm may not constitute persecution)
- Hassan v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 661 (well-founded fear standard discussion)
- Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812 (notice and rebuttal witness issues)
- Al Tawm v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 740 (upholding asylum denial despite serious abuse allegations)
- Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088 (upholding denial of asylum based on record)
- Malonga v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 546 (low-level harassment/intimidation not persecution)