A recent decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals, Matter of V-S-A-, 30 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2026), gives asylum seekers an important lesson: experiencing violence or threats does not automatically mean that U.S. immigration law will consider the experience “past persecution.”

The seriousness and circumstances of the harm matter.

In Matter of V-S-A-, the respondent experienced two physical attacks. In the first attack, he was threatened, pushed from a motorcycle, and beaten with hockey sticks. He sought medical care afterward and was treated with antibiotics and anti-inflammatory medication for minor bruising.

Several months later, he was attacked again. He was pushed, beaten, and kicked and received treatment for bruising and swelling. Although the Immigration Judge originally found that these incidents amounted to persecution, the BIA disagreed. It concluded that the two relatively brief assaults, separated by several months and resulting in relatively minor injuries, were not serious enough under the circumstances to establish past persecution.

Threats may also be considered when deciding whether someone suffered persecution, but not every threat meets the standard.

The respondent said that the people who assaulted him also threatened him. The BIA noted, however, that the attacks occurred several months apart and that he received no additional threats during the months between his second attack and his departure from India.

The Board relied in part on another 2026 decision, Matter of E-M-F-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 379, which explains that death threats alone rarely constitute persecution unless they are objectively credible and made by people who have the immediate ability to carry them out. The asylum applicant must show that the persecutor was capable of imminently following through on the threat.

For Burmese asylum seekers, this decision is particularly important to understand when preparing evidence about arrests, military threats, interrogation, beatings, surveillance, forced recruitment, or other abuse.

An applicant should provide as much evidence and detail as possible about what happened. For example, describe how an attack occurred, how long it lasted, what weapons were used, what injuries resulted, whether medical treatment was necessary, whether threats continued, who made those threats, and why those people had the power or ability to carry them out.

A case should also explain whether separate incidents were connected and whether they demonstrate a continuing pattern of targeting. At the same time, Matter of V-S-A- does not mean that someone must suffer extremely serious physical injuries before persecution can exist. Medical treatment is not legally required in every case, and asylum claims must be evaluated based on their individual facts and the cumulative circumstances. The decision simply found that the harm shown in this respondent’s case did not cross the persecution threshold.

The BIA reversed the Immigration Judge’s finding of past persecution and vacated the asylum grant. It sent the case back to the Immigration Court for additional proceedings, including consideration of whether the respondent could establish a well-founded fear of future persecution without relying on the presumption created by past persecution.

For asylum applicants, the lesson is clear: details and supporting evidence matter. An applicant should explain not only that something bad happened, but the seriousness of the harm, the surrounding circumstances, the continuing danger, and the persecutor’s ability and intent to cause further harm.