Sebastian Juan v. Lynch
662 F. App'x 642
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Sebastian, a Guatemalan national, petitioned for review after the BIA denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- She claimed past and future persecution based on threats and harms she experienced in Guatemala and submitted country-condition and expert evidence.
- The BIA and the immigration judge found her harms did not rise to the level of ‘‘past persecution’’ and rejected her well-founded fear claim.
- The court reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard.
- The Tenth Circuit concluded the record did not compel reversal and affirmed the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sebastian suffered past persecution | Sebastian argued threats and physical harms amounted to past persecution | BIA: harms were not sufficiently extreme; recent years were largely incident-free | Denied — substantial evidence supports no past persecution |
| Whether Sebastian has a well-founded fear of future persecution | Past harms and country conditions make future persecution more likely than not | Same evidence insufficient to show individualized future persecution | Denied — no well-founded fear shown |
| Whether the BIA ignored or mischaracterized evidence (including cumulative and expert/country evidence) | BIA failed to address evidence, mischaracterized record, and did not weigh cumulatively | BIA’s neutral recitation and reliance on the IJ show consideration; cumulative analysis not required on record explicitly | Denied — BIA adequately considered evidence and was not required to parse every argument |
| Eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief | Same facts support withholding and CAT protection because of risk of future harm/torture | Higher standards apply; without showing future persecution, withholding and CAT relief fail | Denied — failure on asylum/future-persecution claim defeats withholding and CAT claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Witjaksono v. Holder, 573 F.3d 968 (10th Cir. 2009) (standards for review and asylum burden)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (review standard noted)
- Krastev v. INS, 292 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2002) (forms of demonstrating persecution)
- Sidabutar v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2007) (severity threshold for past persecution)
- Vatulev v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2003) (threats alone generally not persecution)
- Mena-Flores v. Holder, 776 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2015) (BIA need not parse every argument on record)
- de la Llana-Castellon v. INS, 16 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. 1994) (country conditions do not substitute for individual facts)
- Ritonga v. Holder, 633 F.3d 971 (10th Cir. 2011) (CAT/withholding analysis tied to likelihood of future persecution)
- Karki v. Holder, 715 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2013) (withholding requires higher showing than asylum)