Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Delmy Celina Carrasco-Aguilar, a Honduran citizen, owned a convenience store in Choluteca where she sold cell phone minutes. Beginning in August 2018, two armed men repeatedly entered her store demanding cell phone minutes and threatening to kill her, her daughter, and her nephew. After filing a police report in November 2018, Carrasco-Aguilar refused to give them minutes; the men responded by pointing pistols at her before leaving when another customer arrived. Five days after the police report, she fled to the United States in December 2018 without admission or parole. She applied for asylum and withholding of removal.
The Immigration Judge found Carrasco-Aguilar’s testimony credible but denied her application, concluding she had not established either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The judge reasoned that while troubling, her account was insufficiently extreme to constitute persecution, she failed to show the persecution was based on a protected ground, and she could reasonably relocate within Honduras where family members lived unmolested. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal, agreeing that her account did not establish past persecution.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit upheld the BIA’s decision under the substantial evidence standard, which requires evidence “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Carrasco-Aguilar did not establish past persecution under Fifth Circuit precedent.
The court distinguished Carrasco-Aguilar’s case from Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, where a petitioner targeted by FARC for participating in a body-retrieval mission faced a sustained, organized campaign of threats culminating in bombings and executions. By contrast, Carrasco-Aguilar described repeated theft of cell phone credits without physical harm or deprivation of life’s essentials. While acknowledging different adjudicators might have found persecution, the court could not say the BIA’s contrary conclusion was unreasonable. Because Carrasco-Aguilar did not dispute the BIA’s finding that she waived future persecution claims by failing to meaningfully challenge internal relocation, the court denied her petition.
Key Takeaways
- Persistent theft and threats without physical harm or deprivation of essentials may not rise to persecution under Fifth Circuit precedent, which requires conduct of a sufficiently extreme character
- The substantial evidence standard provides highly deferential review; a petitioner must demonstrate evidence is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”
- Failure to meaningfully contest internal relocation options on appeal can result in forfeiture of future persecution claims
- Criminal victimization must demonstrate systematic targeting on a protected ground or prevent safe relocation within the home country to support asylum eligibility
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s narrow conception of “persecution” under asylum law. For those fleeing criminal victimization, repeated violence must reach a high threshold—mere threats, intimidation, and armed property crimes may not suffice without demonstrating systematic targeting on a protected ground or eliminating safe internal relocation options.
The case underscores the critical importance of exhausting arguments and maintaining clear appellate records in immigration litigation. Carrasco-Aguilar’s failure to meaningfully challenge internal relocation on appeal resulted in waiver of her future persecution claim, a procedural consequence that proved dispositive.