Lobo v. Holder
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13839
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Petitioners Lobo and his children, Honduran nationals, entered the U.S. illegally in 1991 and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- Lobo testified that after investigating a casino’s tax evasion, he received multiple threats from government-associated actors between 1990–1991.
- Threats occurred over about a year; no physical harm occurred to the Lobos.
- Lobo left Honduras with his children in 1991 and later applied for asylum in 1992; DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2007.
- IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief in 2009; the BIA affirmed in 2011; petition for review followed.
- The court reviews combined IJ/BIA determinations under a dual standard: deferential to factual findings and de novo on legal conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Past persecution established? | Lobo: threats amounted to persecution due to government action. | Agency: threats did not amount to persecution; no harm or nexus shown. | No; substantial evidence supports no past persecution. |
| Well-founded fear of future persecution? | Lobo: objective fear based on ongoing threats and government ties. | Agency: fear not objectively reasonable given time since events and lack of corroboration. | No; fear not objectively reasonable; presumption not triggered. |
| Withholding of removal | If asylum fails, withholding should still be considered. | Higher standard; since asylum denied, withholding fails. | Denied for lack of asylum success. |
| CAT protection | Lobo would face torture upon return; government acquiescence implied. | No proof of torture or likelihood of torture by government. | Denied; CAT relief unavailable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nikijuluw v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2005) (establishes substantial evidence standard for persecution findings)
- Elias-Zacarias v. I.N.S., 502 U.S. 478 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (defines the standard for persecution in asylum claims)
- Ang v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005) (credibility and persecution standards in asylum)
- Castillo-Díaz v. Holder, 562 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2009) (requires specific proof for well-founded fear when no presumption)
- Ravix v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2009) (threats must be credible/imminent to constitute persecution)
- Budiono v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2008) (relatives’ safety in homeland weighs against likelihood of persecution)
- López Pérez v. Holder, 587 F.3d 456 (1st Cir. 2009) (relates to nexus and well-founded fear considerations)
- Vilela v. Holder, 620 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (voices that vague threats generally not enough for persecution)
- Romilus v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (direct proof required for well-founded fear when no presumption)