Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias
502 U.S. 478 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An asylum applicant seeking to establish a well-founded fear of persecution "on account of political opinion" must show some evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the persecutor's motive is tied to the victim's political opinion. A guerrilla group's attempt to forcibly conscript an individual does not, on its own, necessarily constitute persecution on account of political opinion.
Facts:
- Elias-Zacarias was an 18-year-old native of Guatemala.
- In January 1987, two armed, uniformed guerrillas came to his home and asked him and his parents to join their organization.
- Elias-Zacarias and his parents refused the request.
- Elias-Zacarias testified that his reason for refusing was fear that the Guatemalan government would retaliate against him and his family if he joined the guerrillas.
- The guerrillas told him and his parents to 'think it over' and that they would be back.
- Fearing the guerrillas would return, Elias-Zacarias fled Guatemala in March 1987.
- After he left, the guerrillas returned to his family's home on two separate occasions looking for him.
Procedural Posture:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings against Elias-Zacarias in an Immigration Court.
- In that proceeding, Elias-Zacarias conceded deportability but applied for asylum and withholding of deportation.
- The Immigration Judge, acting as the court of first instance, denied his application.
- Elias-Zacarias appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal.
- Elias-Zacarias then filed a motion with the BIA to reopen his case, which the BIA denied.
- Elias-Zacarias (as petitioner) appealed the BIA's denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the INS as the respondent.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the BIA's decision, finding Elias-Zacarias eligible for asylum.
- The INS (as petitioner) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a guerrilla organization's attempt to forcibly conscript a person into its military forces necessarily constitute persecution 'on account of political opinion' under the Immigration and Nationality Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. A guerrilla organization’s attempt to forcibly conscript someone does not necessarily constitute persecution on account of political opinion. To be eligible for asylum on this basis, an applicant must provide evidence that the persecutor is motivated by the victim's political opinion, not the persecutor's generalized political goals or need for manpower. The phrase 'persecution on account of... political opinion' refers to the victim's opinion, not the persecutor's. A person might resist recruitment for many non-political reasons, such as fear of combat or a desire to remain with family. In this case, Elias-Zacarias failed to produce evidence showing the guerrillas' motive was to persecute him for his political views; in fact, his stated reason for refusal—fear of government retaliation—was not an expression of political opinion hostile to the guerrillas. Without evidence of the persecutor's motive, a reasonable factfinder could conclude the forced recruitment was based on the need for fighters, not the applicant's political opinion.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. An applicant's well-founded fear of harm from a guerrilla group for refusing to join them can constitute persecution on account of political opinion. A refusal to support a political cause, such as by refusing to be conscripted, is an expression of a political opinion—in this case, neutrality. The Court's contrary interpretation is a 'narrow, grudging construction' of the statute, which should be interpreted flexibly to protect victims. The focus should be on the persecutor's reaction to the victim's action; the guerrillas' threat to 'take' or 'kill' him for his refusal is persecution on account of his overt manifestation of a political opinion. An applicant is not required to provide direct proof of the persecutor's exact mental state, but only to show a 'reasonable possibility' of persecution on account of their political opinion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly heightened the evidentiary burden for asylum seekers claiming persecution based on forced recruitment by non-state actors. It established the critical 'nexus' requirement, compelling applicants to affirmatively prove the persecutor's motive, connecting the feared harm to one of the five protected grounds. By rejecting the idea that neutrality or resistance to recruitment is inherently a political opinion, the Court narrowed the path to asylum for individuals fleeing civil conflicts. This ruling requires immigration judges to scrutinize the specific reasons for the persecution, shifting the focus from the nature of the harm to the subjective intent of the persecutor.
