Wilson Lopez-Lopez v. Merrick B. Garland, 21-3465

Background:

Lopez-Lopez, a Cuban national and private pizzeria owner, testified he opposed Cuba’s communist regime and was harassed by local police officer Osmani (audits, searches, fines, threats to “disappear” him).
He alleges two physical assaults by Osmani (2017: head injury requiring stitches; 2019: back strike not medically treated) and intermittent economic pressure on his businesses; he later relocated from Holguín to Havana and successfully ran a Havana pizzeria for years.
In 2019 he left Cuba for Nicaragua, traveled through Central America and Mexico, was allegedly kidnapped by a Mexican cartel in Mexico (lost documentary evidence), crossed into the U.S. irregularly after an aborted Canada attempt, and applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Lopez-Lopez credible about his businesses/opposition but not fully credible on the assaults and kidnapping; denied asylum/withholding/CAT, concluding the harms did not amount to past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) assumed credibility but affirmed, holding the aggregate harms did not constitute persecution and noting Lopez-Lopez limited his appeal to the asylum denial; he petitioned the Sixth Circuit.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lopez‑Lopez suffered past persecution in Cuba	The assaults, threats, audits, fines, searches, and repeated targeting of his businesses together amount to past persecution	The incidents were isolated, largely non‑severe, sometimes uncorroborated, and do not rise to persecution	No — BIA/IJ properly found the totality did not meet past persecution standard
Whether economic actions amounted to persecution	Confiscations, fines, and interference with his pizzerias caused severe economic deprivation	Audits/searches were warnings, no sustained deprivation or disruption of livelihood; he reopened a Havana pizzeria and operated for years	No — economic harm was not sufficiently severe or deliberately imposed to be persecution
Whether credibility findings (assaults/kidnapping) require reversal	Credibility errors and ignoring corroborating country‑condition evidence made IJ’s findings unreasonable	BIA assumed credibility for purposes of its decision and ruled harms insufficient even if true	No — court will not revisit IJ credibility where BIA assumed testimony credible and resolved the merits against petitioner
Whether Lopez‑Lopez showed a well‑founded fear of future persecution	Continued police interest, Cuba’s repression of dissidents, and prior incidents make future persecution reasonably likely	Long period of successful business operation, departure without obstruction, lack of specific individualized threat, and insufficient corroboration render fear speculative	No — petitioner failed to show objective, specific, reasonable fear of individualized future persecution

Key Cases Cited

INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (describes standard for reviewing factual findings and asylum elements)
Ouda v. INS, 324 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2003) (substantial‑evidence review of asylum fact findings)
Gilaj v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2005) (framework for distinguishing harassment from persecution)
Mohammed v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2007) (single sufficiently severe incident can constitute persecution)
Lumaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2006) (burden allocation where past persecution not shown; requirements for future fear)
Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941 (6th Cir. 2004) (examples where violent incidents did not compel finding of past persecution)
Marikasi v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2016) (persecution does not include all unfair or unlawful treatment)
Mapouya v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2007) (requirement for reasonably specific evidence of individualized threat)
Stserba v. Holder, 646 F.3d 964 (6th Cir. 2011) (economic deprivation can be persecution only if sufficiently severe)