Mzenga Wanyama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 698 F.3d 1032

Background

Wanyama is a Kenyan citizen who entered the U.S. as a J-1 in 1992; his wife and children followed in 1995.
He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after his 2005 removal proceedings began.
He asserts persecution based on a 2004 newspaper article criticizing Kibaki and praising Odinga, and on his political affiliations.
An IJ found his subjective fear credible but no objective fear; the IJ reopened in 2009 to admit new evidence of improved Kenya conditions.
The BIA affirmed, and Wanyama petitions for review, challenging the asylum denial and his due process claim.
The court reviews the BIA’s decision, applying the substantial evidence standard to asylum determinations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports denial of asylum for lack of an objectively reasonable fear	Wanyama claims a well-founded fear due to government persecution of opponents	The government contends evidence shows no objective risk or pattern of persecution	Affirmed the denial of asylum
Whether Wanyama had a protected due process interest in asylum proceedings	Argues denial and reopening violated due process by late evidence	Asylum is statutorily discretionary; no protected interest and reopening within IJ discretion	Affirmed denial of due process claim
Whether Wanyama showed a pattern of persecution against journalists to support a belief of future persecution	Claims similarity to Kenyan journalists warrants relief	Wanyama was a literature professor, not a journalist, and evidence insufficient	Pattern claim rejected; not similarly situated

Key Cases Cited

Lopez-Amador v. Holder, 649 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2011) (persecution threshold requires more than low-level harassment)
Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 602 (8th Cir. 2007) (harassment/unclear threats insufficient without physical harm)
Quiñonez-Perez v. Holder, 635 F.3d 342 (8th Cir. 2011) (isolated violent acts against family not enough to show persecution)
Surya v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2006) (persecution pattern must be tied to the applicant)
Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2004) (relevance of credibility and lack of corroboration to well-founded fear)
Feleke v. I.N.S., 118 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 1997) (news reporter analogy; not directly applicable here)
Osuji v. Holder, 657 F.3d 719 (8th Cir. 2011) (substantial evidence standard; fear must be reasonable)
Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2003) (objective fear standard requires credible, specific evidence)
Ladyha v. Holder, 588 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 2009) (reiterates standard for objective fear in well-founded fear cases)
Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2008) (final agency action review; BIA adoption of IJ findings)
Karim v. Holder, 596 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2010) (well-founded fear requires subjective and objective components)
Litvinov v. Holder, 605 F.3d 548 (8th Cir. 2010) (credibility and evidence for objective fear)
Nativi-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2003) (asylum relief is statutory and discretionary)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (procedural due process burden and prejudice standard)
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (due process in removal proceedings; govt discretion in asylum)