Ninoska Lopez-Amador v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
649 F.3d 880
8th Cir.2011Background
- Lopez-Amador, a Venezuelan citizen, entered the U.S. as a tourist in 2002 and remained beyond her authorized period.
- She filed asylum and related applications in 2003 pro se, with later revisions in 2007 through counsel, asserting political affiliation and later alleging persecution on political grounds and lesbian orientation.
- An IJ denied relief in 2008, concluding the applications untimely or not proven, and ordered removal to Venezuela.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial, and Lopez-Amador sought reopening with new evidence alleging worsening conditions and a government list of asylum seekers.
- The BIA denied reopening, and Lopez-Amador appeals challenging timeliness, asylum/withholding/CAT merits, and reopening.
- The court affirms, upholding the BIA’s determinations on asylum, withholding, CAT, and reopening based on the record and changed circumstances evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez-Amador showed past persecution or well-founded fear | Lopez-Amador argues she was specifically targeted (snipers, checkpoints, park harassment). | BIA/ IJ found no specific targeting or credible, imminent persecution; incidents were not shown to be on ground. | No reversible error; no past persecution or well-founded fear established. |
| Whether future persecution was likely if returned | Economic hardship and single-out persecution as opposition member would occur. | Economic harms and generic political opposition do not establish persecution; no individual targeting shown. | Lopez-Amador failed to prove likelihood of future persecution. |
| Whether relief under CAT was proper | Failure to fear torture due to similar grounds as asylum claim; should be deferrable removal if torture likely. | CAT relief denied for same reasons as asylum/withholding; not likely tortured upon return. | CAT relief denied. |
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen with new evidence | New evidence shows worsening conditions and government access to asylum seeker list suggesting increased risk. | Evidence insufficient to show changed circumstances likely to change outcome; speculation and general reports insufficient. | BIA’s denial of reopening upheld; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zakirov v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2004) (defines persecution and thresholds for credibility and specificity)
- Litvinov v. Holder, 605 F.3d 548 (8th Cir. 2010) (objective fear standard for well-founded fear of persecution)
- Uli v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2008) (subjective and objective components of fear of persecution)
- Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 1997) (economic hardship does not equal persecution)
- Makatengkeng v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2007) (mere harassment does not amount to persecution)
- Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 2008) (one motion to reopen; changed circumstances standard)