897 F.3d 33
1st Cir.2018Background
- Petitioner Blanca Lidia Martínez‑Pérez, an Afro‑Honduran who had polio as a child and walks with a limp, experienced repeated harassment and discrimination in Honduras and left for the U.S. in 2014 after several threatening incidents.
- At hearing she testified to three principal incidents: a home invasion by an unknown intruder (who said nothing), repeated harassment by a man named “Charlie” (verbal abuse, a thrown bottle, and one death‑threat), and a separate death threat; she submitted country‑condition reports describing discrimination against disabled and Afro‑Honduran persons.
- An IJ found Martínez‑Pérez credible and sympathetic but denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief, concluding the incidents did not rise to past persecution and that a single persecutor did not give rise to an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ, agreeing the incidents were insufficiently severe or frequent to constitute past persecution and thus insufficient to establish a well‑founded fear of future persecution.
- Martínez‑Pérez appealed, arguing (1) past persecution, (2) humanitarian asylum, and (3) due process error for alleged failure to consider evidence; the government argued the facts did not meet asylum or humanitarian standards and that some claims were unexhausted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner suffered past persecution | Martínez‑Pérez: three incidents (home invasion; threats and bottle‑throwing by Charlie) constitute past persecution tied to race/disability | Government: incidents were isolated, not severe or frequent enough and lacked government nexus | Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA/IJ that incidents did not rise to past persecution |
| Whether petitioner has a well‑founded fear of future persecution | Martínez‑Pérez: past incidents + country conditions make her fear objectively reasonable | Government: fear is based on isolated incidents and a single persecutor, not objectively reasonable | Denied — credible fear assumed subjectively, but objectively unreasonable given record |
| Whether petitioner is eligible for humanitarian asylum | Martínez‑Pérez: alternatively entitled to humanitarian asylum based on severity of past harm and country conditions | Government: humanitarian relief unavailable because she failed to show past persecution | Denied — humanitarian asylum applies only after showing past persecution, which she did not prove |
| Whether IJ/BIA violated due process by not considering evidence and citing inapplicable law | Martínez‑Pérez: IJ failed to consider country‑condition evidence and applied wrong precedent | Government: claim unexhausted before BIA, so court lacks jurisdiction | Not reviewed — court lacks jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Paiz‑Morales v. Lynch, 795 F.3d 238 (1st Cir.) (standard for reviewing BIA that adopts IJ reasoning)
- Singh v. Holder, 750 F.3d 84 (1st Cir.) (well‑founded fear and asylum burden)
- Carvalho‑Frois v. Holder, 667 F.3d 69 (1st Cir.) (elements of persecution; rebuttable presumption from past persecution)
- Vasili v. Holder, 732 F.3d 83 (1st Cir.) (severity/frequency required for past persecution)
- López‑Castro v. Holder, 577 F.3d 49 (1st Cir.) (government nexus and speculative nexus insufficient)
- Attia v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.) (general climate of discrimination insufficient for persecution)