From the desk of Thon Dari Maung, Assistant Director
Mr. Urias, from El Salvador, was denied asylum. He testified that a hitman demanded money from
him, shot two of his half-brothers, and threatened to kill all members of his family. In response, Mr.
Urias relocated on four separate occasions; but, the hitman kept finding him and making threats. Urias
was physically assaulted during a brief return to his hometown.
The Immigration Judge determined that the harm suffered did not rise to the level of “persecution.”
The decision emphasized the absence of any medical, psychiatric, or psychological evaluations.
Furthermore, the Immigration Judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that internal
relocation was unreasonable, noting that his prior relocations were limited to nearby areas and that he
could have relocated further within El Salvador.
On appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision, and the
United States Supreme Court declined to disturb the ruling, concluding that the lower court’s
determination was not clearly erroneous.
Practical Considerations for Asylum Applicants
Applicants presenting similar claims should be prepared to address the following issues:
- Whether the alleged harm is supported by medical, psychological, or other corroborating
evidence. - Whether reasonable efforts were made to avoid harm through internal relocation, and why
further relocation was not feasible. - Whether there is credible and current evidence demonstrating that the alleged persecutor
maintains an ongoing interest in the applicant. - Whether supporting statements or documentation from individuals with knowledge of the
threat have been provided. - Whether the applicant can establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in the absence
of recent or continuing threats.
Leave a Comment