USCA11 Case: 20-13269 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13269
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A216-427-441
BENSON NDUWUEZE OKPARA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(July 2, 2021)
USCA11 Case: 20-13269 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 2 of 8
Before JORDAN, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Benson Nduwueze Okpara petitions us to reverse a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order
denying his requests for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), for withholding of removal under the INA, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3), and for withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment
(“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). On appeal, Okpara argues that the BIA’s decision
is not supported by substantial evidence because he demonstrated past persecution
and a well-founded fear of future persecution in Nigeria. 1
In cases where the BIA has issued its own opinion and reasoning, as here,
we review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the BIA expressly
adopts or explicitly agrees with the IJ’s opinion. Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d
1270, 1275 (11th Cir. 2009). We do not consider issues that were not reached by
the BIA. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016).
We review the BIA’s factual findings only to ensure that they are supported
by “substantial evidence.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350
1
Okpara has not challenged the IJ’s determination that he is not entitled to withholding of
removal under the CAT. Accordingly, we do not address that issue. We decide only whether
Okpara has demonstrated eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal under the INA.
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13269 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 3 of 8
(11th Cir. 2009). This standard is highly deferential. Id. We must view the record
in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of that decision. Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1236
(11th Cir. 2006). Thus, we may not reverse the BIA’s decision unless the evidence
as a whole “compels” a different outcome. Chen v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 463 F.3d 1228,
1231 (11th Cir. 2006). “The mere fact that the record may [also] support a
contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative
findings.” Silva, 448 F.3d at 1236.
The Attorney General may grant asylum to any non-citizen who meets the
INA’s definition of a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A refugee is defined
as:
any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality . . .
and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to
avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The asylum applicant bears the burden of proving that
he is a refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Specifically, the applicant must
demonstrate (1) that he was persecuted in the past on account of a protected
ground, or (2) that he has a well-founded fear that he will be persecuted in the
future on account of a protected ground. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247,
1257 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is by now well-established . . . that an applicant can
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13269 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 4 of 8
establish eligibility for asylum as long as he can show that the persecution is, at
least in part, motivated by a protected ground.” De Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
525 F.3d 999, 1007 (11th Cir. 2008).
“An applicant shall be found to be a refugee on the basis of past persecution
if the applicant can establish that he or she has suffered persecution in the past in
the applicant's country of nationality.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). Persecution is an
“extreme concept,” requiring more than isolated incidents of verbal harassment or
intimidation. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005).
“[M]ere harassment does not amount to persecution.” Id. Nor do threats or harm
toward a petitioner’s family member constitute evidence of persecution against the
petitioner, “where there has been no threat or harm directed against the petitioner.”
Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2013). Likewise,
evidence of private violence, or that a person would be the victim of criminal
activity, “does not constitute evidence of persecution on account of a statutorily
protected ground.” Id. at 1310.
Additionally, “[a]n applicant for asylum who alleges persecution by a
private actor must prove that his home country is unable or unwilling to protect
him.” Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 950 (11th Cir. 2010). “[T]he INA
does not extend eligibility for asylum to anyone who fears the general danger that
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13269 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 5 of 8
inevitably accompanies political ferment and factional strife.” Mazariegos v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 241 F.3d 1320, 1328 (11th Cir. 2001).
If a non-citizen establishes past persecution, then he is presumed to have a
well-founded fear of future persecution unless the government can rebut the
presumption. Diallo v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 596 F.3d 1329, 1332-33 (11th Cir. 2010).
“In determining whether an alien has suffered past persecution, the IJ [and the
BIA] must consider the cumulative effects of the incidents.” Id. at 1333. A brief
detention coupled with minor bruising does not establish persecution. Id. By
contrast, “intentionally being shot at in a moving car multiple times” constitutes
past persecution, regardless of whether the attack is successful. Id.
A non-citizen who has not shown past persecution still may be eligible for
asylum if he holds a well-founded fear that returning to his country would pose a
threat of future persecution on a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2). To
establish eligibility for asylum based on a well-founded fear of future persecution,
the applicant must prove (1) a “subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable”
fear of persecution, (2) on account of a protected ground. Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257
F.3d 1262, 1287, 1289 (11th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Patel v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc). “The subjective
component is generally satisfied by the applicant’s credible testimony that he or
she genuinely fears persecution,” while “the objective prong can be fulfilled either
5
USCA11 Case: 20-13269 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 6 of 8
by establishing past persecution or that he or she has a good reason to fear future
persecution.” Id. at 1289.
A well-founded fear means a “reasonable possibility” of future persecution.
8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i)(B). To establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution, an asylum applicant must present “specific, detailed facts showing a
good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution.” Najjar, 257
F.3d at 1287. The applicant also must demonstrate that he or she cannot “avoid
persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s [home] country,” if
such relocation would be reasonable. Id. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii).
To qualify for withholding of removal under the INA, a non-citizen must
show that, if returned to his country, his life or freedom would be threatened on a
protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The non-citizen must demonstrate either
past persecution or that he would more likely than not be persecuted if returned to
the country of removal. D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 819 (11th
Cir. 2004). If a petitioner is unable to meet the standard of proof for asylum, he
cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Id.
As an initial matter, we need only consider Okpara’s evidence as it relates to
his alleged persecution in Nigeria, his country of nationality. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A) (defining “refugee” as a person who is either unable or unwilling
to return to the “country of such person’s nationality” due to persecution); see also
6
USCA11 Case: 20-13269 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 7 of 8
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (stating that a person will qualify as a refugee if he or she
has suffered past persecution “in [his or her] country or nationality,” or if he or she
can demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution “in his or her country of
nationality”). We therefore do not discuss the testimony indicating that Okpara
and his wife suffered harassment in Romania on account of their interracial
marriage. Okpara has not shown how the persecution he allegedly experienced in
Romania has any bearing on whether he may safely return to Nigeria.
Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Okpara
was ineligible for asylum, or withholding of removal, because he failed to establish
past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a protected
ground. Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1257. As to past persecution, Okpara’s beating in 1982
does not amount to persecution because it was an isolated incident of harassment
by a single individual. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231. Nor do the untimely deaths
of Okpara’s brother and father, allegedly by poisoning, constitute evidence of
persecution because the record does not indicate that there were ever any threats
directed toward Okpara himself. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d at 1308. Furthermore,
Okpara offered no evidence other than his own speculation to support his assertion
that his family members were killed because of their religion. Thus, the record
does not compel a conclusion that Okpara faced past persecution in Nigeria.
7
USCA11 Case: 20-13269 Date Filed: 07/02/2021 Page: 8 of 8
As to future persecution, the record indicates that Okpara’s fear of being
persecuted if he returns to Nigeria is not well-founded because the beating he
suffered there occurred almost forty years ago, and because his mother has
remained in the country unharmed since then. See Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1259 (finding
a non-citizen’s fears about future persecution to be “contradicted by his testimony
that his son and his parents have remained unharmed in the region of [his home
country] where [he] allegedly was threatened”). Furthermore, because evidence
shows that approximately half of Nigeria’s population is Christian, the record does
not compel a conclusion that Okpara likely would be singled out for persecution
based on his Christian religion in Nigeria—or that he would be unable to relocate
to a safer region within the country.2
For the foregoing reasons, we deny Okpara’s petition.
PETITION DENIED.
2
Okpara also argues that he would face persecution in Nigeria based on his membership in
a mixed-race family. But he did not produce any objective evidence establishing that mixed-race
families are targeted for persecution in Nigeria. Consequently, Okpara has not proven that he is
eligible for asylum or withholding of removal on this ground.
8
Benson Nduwueze Okpara v. U.S. Attorney General
Combined Opinion