147 F.4th 568
5th Cir.2025Background
- Miguel Angel Montiel Rubio, a Venezuelan citizen, entered the U.S. on a B-2 visa in 2019 and overstayed, applying for asylum due to fears of political persecution by the "colectivos," a pro-government paramilitary group.
- Rubio engaged in political activism between 2010 and 2019 and was once shot by colectivos and later threatened, but continued to live and move about Venezuela, and made multiple trips between Venezuela and the U.S. during this period.
- An Immigration Judge found Rubio credible but denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, holding that he failed to prove past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or a likelihood of torture if returned.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the Judge’s findings, specifically noting the absence of systematic, targeted harm and no particularized governmental interest in Rubio.
- Rubio petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review, arguing the agency erred in its assessments and legal standards on all three forms of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Rubio’s Argument | Bondi’s (Gov't) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Past Persecution (Asylum) | Threats and physical harm cumulatively are persecution | Only isolated, nonsystematic incidents occurred; Rubio recovered, traveled freely | Not persecution; incidents weren’t systematic |
| Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution | Political activism & worsening conditions create real risk | Rubio not individually targeted; could relocate within Venezuela, last threat years ago | No objective, individual risk; relocation possible |
| Withholding of Removal | Clear probability of persecution proven | Not met; same failures as asylum claim | Not entitled; failed standard |
| Convention Against Torture (CAT) | Past harm, inability to relocate, and general conditions show risk | No government interest; no warrant/arrest, no past torture under law | Not eligible; no specific, personal risk of torture |
Key Cases Cited
- Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2020) (substantial evidence standard, and not all credible harm rises to persecution)
- Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590 (5th Cir. 2006) (discretion in asylum; higher standard for withholding)
- Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004) (isolated incident does not necessarily qualify as persecution)
- Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2006) (sustained, systematic campaign required for past persecution)
- Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 2019) (future vs. past persecution; threats must be specific and immediate)
- Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 2018) (factors for objective reasonableness of fear of future persecution)