MOGARRABI
19 I. & N. Dec. 439 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An applicant for asylum establishes a 'well-founded fear' of persecution if a reasonable person in the applicant's circumstances would fear persecution, a standard that is significantly less demanding than the 'clear probability' standard required for withholding of deportation.
Facts:
- The respondents, Mogharrabi and his wife, are natives and citizens of Iran who were admitted to the United States as nonimmigrant students around September 8, 1978.
- In February 1981, Mogharrabi visited the Iranian Interests Section at the Algerian Embassy in the U.S. to obtain documentation related to his student status.
- During this visit, an embassy employee demanded Mogharrabi's original passport, suspecting he might have applied for asylum.
- An altercation ensued, during which Mogharrabi told the employee and his supervisor that they were 'religious fascists stuffing their pockets with the nation's wealth.'
- In response to Mogharrabi's statements, the employee drew a gun, prompting Mogharrabi and his friend to flee the building.
- Mogharrabi believed the entire incident was recorded by security cameras within the embassy.
- Separately, Mogharrabi had participated in anti-Khomeini political demonstrations while living in the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued Orders to Show Cause against the respondents on August 28, 1984, charging them with remaining in the country longer than permitted.
- During deportation proceedings before an immigration judge, the respondents conceded deportability, and the male respondent filed an application for asylum and withholding of deportation.
- On August 16, 1985, the immigration judge denied the application for asylum and withholding of deportation.
- The respondents appealed the denial of their asylum and withholding claims to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the 'well-founded fear' standard for asylum met if a reasonable person in the applicant's circumstances would fear persecution, even if the likelihood of that persecution is less than a 'clear probability'?
Opinions:
Majority - Milhollan, Chairman
Yes, the 'well-founded fear' standard for asylum is met if a reasonable person in the applicant's circumstances would fear persecution. Following the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) holds that the 'well-founded fear' standard for asylum is 'significantly different' from and lower than the 'clear probability' standard for withholding of deportation. The BIA explicitly overrules its prior decision in Matter of Acosta, which had equated the two standards. The Board adopts the 'reasonable person' standard, holding that an applicant's credible and detailed testimony alone can be sufficient to establish a well-founded fear, even without corroborating evidence. Applying this standard, the Board found Mogharrabi's account of the confrontation at the Iranian Interests Section to be plausible and coherent, concluding that a reasonable person in his position would fear persecution on account of political opinion if returned to Iran.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark in asylum law, formally aligning the Board of Immigration Appeals' jurisprudence with the Supreme Court's holding in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca. By establishing the 'reasonable person' test, it significantly lowered the evidentiary burden for asylum seekers, distinguishing it from the much stricter 'more likely than not' standard for withholding of deportation. This created a more accessible path to protection for refugees. The ruling's acceptance of an applicant's credible testimony as potentially sufficient evidence acknowledges the practical difficulties asylum seekers face in obtaining corroboration from their home countries, setting a crucial precedent for future adjudications.
