Torben Kjaer Soendergaard v. U.S. Attorney General, 23-11629

Torben Kjaer Soendergaard, a Danish citizen and Pentecostal-Charismatic Christian, applied for asylum in the U.S. based on a claimed fear of religious persecution if removed to Denmark.
Soendergaard founded "The Last Reformation," a ministry that practices casting out demons, and became subject to critical media attention, including a Danish documentary that depicted his ministry negatively.
He asserted that after the documentary aired, Danish government officials and advocacy groups increased scrutiny, and a Danish law (§ 243) was enacted addressing mental abuse, which he believed targeted his practices.
Soendergaard never faced charges or arrest in Denmark; no findings of wrongdoing resulted from multiple government investigations.
Both the Immigration Judge (IJ) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his asylum claim, finding no well-founded fear of future persecution, and denied his motion to remand for consideration of new evidence involving a leaked recording of his immigration hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Objective fear of future persecution based on religion	Soendergaard claimed Danish law and societal hostility would force him to hide his faith or face imprisonment.	The government argued § 243 is generally applicable, not specifically targeting him or his religion.	Substantial evidence supported the BIA; no objective evidence of likely persecution on return to Denmark.
Remand for new evidence (hearing recording)	The leaked recording intensified risk by spreading awareness of his asylum claim in Denmark.	This evidence was cumulative and wouldn't change the result; Denmark was already aware of his activities.	Denial of remand proper; evidence not material and unlikely to alter the outcome.
Violation of confidential hearing regulations	Implied but not raised before the BIA as a distinct claim, so review should be allowed due to its seriousness.	Soendergaard failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA; thus, court review is barred.	Dismissed for lack of exhaustion under the claims-processing rule as argued by the government.
Past persecution or actual harm by government officials	He faced investigations, threats, and social ostracism due to his religious practices and media coverage.	No arrest, no charges, and no demonstrated targeting under the new law; similar practitioners remain in Denmark.	No past persecution demonstrated; investigations and threats did not rise to the level of "persecution."

Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399 (11th Cir. 2016) (limiting review to BIA's specific grounds)
Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2019) (substantial evidence review standard)
De Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2008) (persecution requires more than harassment)
Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009) (practicing religion underground as persecution)
Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 445 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing fear of prosecution from persecution)
Min Yong Huang v. Holder, 774 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2014) (not all offensive treatment is "persecution")
Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009) (motions to reopen are disfavored and require materiality)