Lapadat v. Bondi, 23-1745

Ion Lapadat, a native of Romania and member of the Roma ethnic minority, sought asylum in the U.S. for himself and his family, claiming persecution in Romania based on their Roma ethnicity.
The family provided detailed, credible testimony of violence and discrimination: Ion was shot after being called a "gypsy," his daughters faced attempted kidnapping and threats of rape, and the family experienced repeated police harassment, violence, and social exclusion.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief, finding that the incidents did not rise to the level of persecution and that the Roma were not a disfavored group in Romania.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, stating the mistreatment did not amount to persecution, the Roma were not a disfavored group given EU reforms, and Ion failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision, focusing on whether the BIA erred in evaluating the severity of harm and the Roma's group status, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether past harm rose to persecution	Lapadat suffered severe, cumulative physical and psychological harm due to Roma ethnicity	Incidents were either isolated, criminal, or general discrimination/harassment	The record compels a finding of past persecution
Roma as a disfavored group in Romania	Centuries of systemic, government-condoned antigypsyism qualify Roma as a disfavored group	EU anti-discrimination efforts show improvement; Roma not disfavored under current law	Roma are a disfavored group in Romania
Well-founded fear of future persecution	Lapadat's experiences and widespread Roma persecution create a reasonable fear of future harm	Harm was isolated/individualized; no sufficient proof of individualized future risk	BIA must reconsider given errors in past harm and group status analyses
Standard of review for past persecution	Applying law to settled facts requires de novo or substantial evidence review (outcome is same here)	Deferential review; must uphold IJ/BIA if findings supported by substantial evidence	Past harm rises to persecution under either standard, so remand appropriate

Mihalev v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognized Roma as an identifiable protected ethnic group for asylum claims)
Singh v. I.N.S., 134 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 1998) (mandates assessment of cumulative effect of past harms in persecution claims)
Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2006) (physical violence often compels finding of past persecution)
Korablina v. I.N.S., 158 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 1998) (cumulative threats and violence to a minority can establish eligibility for asylum)
Kaur v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2021) (attempted murder/kidnapping/rape typically constitutes persecution)
Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (defining disfavored group status and the correlation with individualized risk)
Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2004) (aggregate economic and physical harms amount to persecution)
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2009) (requires analysis of government, not just international, efforts against discrimination)