643 F. App'x 345
5th Cir.2016Background
- Petitioner Prince Makabala Ndulu, a citizen of the DRC, seeks review of the BIA’s dismissal of his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims.
- Ndulu alleges past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution for his political opinion after encounters with DRC officials following returns from South Korea.
- Incidents: airport interrogation and threats upon July 2011 arrival; one eight-hour detention at the airport in Feb 2012 with stripping, beating, and being told he was “blacklisted”; text-message threats; no medical treatment sought and no further incidents while remaining in or later returning to the DRC several times.
- IJ denied relief; BIA affirmed, adopting parts of the IJ’s reasoning. The court reviews BIA and IJ decisions under substantial-evidence review for factual findings and de novo for legal questions.
- The BIA concluded Ndulu did not show past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, eligibility for withholding of removal, or eligibility for CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ndulu suffered past persecution on account of political opinion | Ndulu says detention, beating, threats, and being “blacklisted” constitute past persecution | BIA/IJ say incidents were insufficiently severe or systematic to rise to persecution | Court affirmed: not past persecution under substantial-evidence review |
| Whether Ndulu has a well-founded fear of future persecution | Ndulu claims blacklist and threats make a reasonable future fear | BIA/IJ say objective circumstances (ability to remain, travel, and prior returns without harm) undercut reasonableness | Court affirmed: fear not objectively reasonable, legal standard properly applied |
| Whether Ndulu is eligible for withholding of removal | Ndulu argues higher protection follows from same facts showing asylum eligibility | Government contends asylum showing fails, so higher withholding standard also unmet | Court affirmed: withholding not shown because asylum burden not met |
| Whether Ndulu is entitled to CAT relief | Ndulu asserts likely torture due to blacklist and political activity | BIA/IJ found insufficient evidence that torture is more likely than not | Court affirmed: evidence does not compel finding of probable torture |
Key Cases Cited
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (scope of appellate review of BIA and IJ decisions)
- Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2002) (standards for reviewing BIA and IJ)
- Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131 (5th Cir. 2006) (standard for overturning BIA factual findings; relation between asylum and withholding burdens)
- Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76 (5th Cir. 1994) (substantial-evidence review explanation)
- Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2014) (elements of asylum eligibility)
- Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004) (single/multiple incidents may be insufficient to show past persecution)
- Aligwekwe v. Holder, [citation="345 F. App'x 915"] (5th Cir. 2009) (similar precedent rejecting past-persecution claim)
- Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2015) (standard for CAT relief: more likely than not to be tortured)