Stanojkova v. Holder, 645 F.3d 943

Background

Macedonian couple Gjorgji Naumov and Ivanka Stanojkova sought withholding of removal and potential deferral for persecution based on ethnic Albanian tensions in Macedonia.
In 2001 Albanian insurrection led to government allegations of human rights abuses; tensions persisted despite Ohrid Framework Agreement.
On July 2, 2002, three armed assailants intruded into the Naumovs' home, assaulted Naumov and his wife, and threatened their safety during a brief, ten-minute attack.
Police response occurred six hours after the attack; authorities allegedly could not protect them due to Lions, a paramilitary police unit, reportedly allied with the government.
The Naumovs fled Macedonia two days after the incident and eventually entered the United States without visas; removal proceedings followed.
IJ denied relief and the Board affirmed; the petition for review challenged the Board and IJ's handling of persecution standards and harm thresholds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution.	Naumov argued presumption applies due to past harm.	Holder argued no clear finding of persecution and thus no presumption.	Presumption applies once persecution is established; remanded for proper factual development.
Whether the harm here rises to the level of persecution rather than harassment.	Naumov argues the assault and sexualized conduct targeted him and his wife for their ethnicity and status, constituting persecution.	Board/ IJ found harm insufficient for persecution, likening it to harassment.	The conduct crosses into persecution; the harm was sufficiently grave to meet the standard.
How to distinguish harassment from persecution in asylum adjudication.	The line between harassment and persecution was crossed by the incidents described.	Administrative decisions failed to articulate a coherent standard.	The court rejects the narrow interpretation and endorses a coherent, minimum-harm framework distinguishing harassment from persecution.
What standard governs the minimum harm required for persecution and who should define it.	The Board has failed to provide a consistent standard; courts must provide coherent guidance.	Board's standard should define persecution in terms of harm, but has not done so adequately.	The Board's approach is inadequate; the court provides clarifying guidance and remands for consideration of changed conditions.
Whether the case should be remanded for consideration of changed conditions in Macedonia.	Changed conditions may reduce risk of future persecution; must be considered.	Board did not address changed conditions adequately.	The petition is granted and remanded to the Board for reconsideration in light of changed conditions.

Key Cases Cited

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1987) (establishes asylum withholding framework with future persecution standard)
Toure v. Holder, 624 F.3d 422 (7th Cir. 2010) (withholding standard and related considerations)
Quao Lin Dong v. U.S. Attorney General, 638 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2011) (discusses persecution framework and standards)
Gomes v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 746 (9th Cir. 2007) (critique of vague persecution standards and need for coherence)
Baba v. Holder, 569 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2009) (harassment vs persecution and evidentiary considerations)
Sahi v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 587 (7th Cir. 2005) (limits of Board's discretion and need for coherent standards)
Rodriguez-Roman v. INS, 98 F.3d 416 (9th Cir. 1996) (historical treatment of persecution standards)
Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1999) (limits of persecution determinations and judicial role)
Li v. Attorney General, 400 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2005) (dissent addressing coherence in persecution determinations)