United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1262

___________________________

Bogale Assefa Tegegn

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney

General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: October 17, 2012

 Filed: January 11, 2013

____________

Before LOKEN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

Bogale Assefa Tegegn, a 68-year-old citizen of Ethiopia, lawfully entered the

United States in February 2008 and timely applied for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (IJ)

denied relief after a hearing, rejecting Tegegn’s claims of past persecution and a wellfounded fear of future persecution based primarily on his political opinion. The
Board ofImmigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Tegegn’s administrative appeal in an

opinion agreeing with the IJ’s determinations but not adopting her opinion. Tegegn

petitions for judicial review of the BIA’s final agency action. We conclude that

substantial evidence on the administrative record as a whole supports the BIA’s

determination that Tegegn failed to demonstrate past persecution. See Kebede v.

Gonzales, 481 F.3d 562, 564 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review). However, the BIA

did not adequately consider one aspect of his distinct claim of a well-founded fear of

future persecution that was supported by credible testimony and by other record

evidence including State Department Human Rights Reports. Accordingly, we grant

the petition for review and remand for further consideration of this issue. 

I. Past Persecution

The Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(A). As relevant here, the term refugee means a person unable or

unwilling to return to his country of origin “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). An

applicant who establishes past persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear

of persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). Thus, a credible claim of past persecution

must usually be resolved before the IJ and the BIA consider a claim of well-founded

fear of future persecution. Compare Bushira v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 626, 632-33 (8th

Cir. 2006), with Pavlovich v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 613, 617 (8th Cir. 2007). 

“Persecution is an extreme concept that does not encompass low-level

intimidation and harassment.” Ladyha v. Holder, 588 F.3d 574, 578 (8th Cir. 2009). 

Absent a showing of physical harm, incidents of harassment, unfulfilled threats of

injury, and economic deprivation are not persecution. Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479

F.3d 602, 606 (8th Cir. 2007). A threat of death on account of political opinion can

be enough to establish past persecution, but “not all alleged threats of death

-2-
necessarily amount to persecution,” for example, threats that are exaggerated, nonspecific, lacking in immediacy, or not based on a protected ground. Corado v.

Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 945, 947-48 (8th Cir. 2004). We will affirm the BIA’s

determination that an alien has failed to prove past persecution unless the evidence

was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find to the contrary. 

Ladyha, 588 F.3d at 577.

Tegegn submitted detailed evidence of the political conditions he experienced

in Ethiopia in his July 2008 Form I-589 asylum application, a lengthy February 2010

affidavit, and testimony at the March 2010 hearing. The IJfound him to be a credible

witness. To briefly summarize this evidence, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary

Democratic Front(EPRDF), formed by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF),

became the ruling party in Ethiopia in 1991 after the prior Marxist government was

overthrown. Tegegn, a college-educated member of the dominant Amhara ethnic

group with experience in agronomy and farm management, was then working at the

Addis Ababa UniversityLibrary. He resisted repeated requests that he join the TPLF. 

In 1995, he instead joined the All-Amhara People’s Organization (AAPO), an

ethnically-based opposition party. He was soon demoted at the University Library

and ultimately dismissed in 1999.

After initially serving assecretary of an AAPO regional office, Tegegn rose to

leadership positions, serving at times as a member of the Central Committee and the

Executive Committee, as chairman of the party newspaper Editorial Board, and as

Secretary General, First Vice President, and member ofthe NationalCongress. These

last positions provided “an opportunity to meet with other opposition political party

leaders,foreign embassies,international organizations and international news media.” 

He published overtwo hundred articles commenting on the government in private and

AAPO publications, including a 2004 book entitled The Great Conspiracy that

criticized the TPLF party’s ownership and control of Ethiopian industries. Tegegn

entered the United States in February 2008. His wife visited him in May, stayed two

-3-
months, and returned to Ethiopia to be with their grown children. His family has

continued to live in Ethiopia unharmed, although his wife was dismissed fromher job

at a government-run television station in July 2009. 

Tegegn’s bases his claim of past persecution on the following incidents:

-- While in Ethiopia, he received repeated threats, harassment, and warnings

over the years in response to his AAPO activities and his writings. 

-- In 2002, while he was walking to the AAPO office, other pedestrians warned

Tegegn that a car was about to hit him from behind. He jumped out of the way, and

the car sped away. While walking home from the AAPO office that evening, a young

man approached and said, “you saved yourself from the accident . . . you will get [it],

don’t worry.” Though he could not identify the car, its driver, or the young man,

Tegegn testified that this type of hit-and-run attack was a method the government

used to eliminate its political opponents. 

-- Although his 2004 Conspiracy book was published by a government

publisher, officials warned him to stop his anti-government writings with comments

such as, “This is against our bread.” An affidavit by Tegegn’s wife averred that she

was repeatedly warned to tell her husband to quit participating in the AAPO and

publishing articles. “If he does not stop,” one unidentified person said, “you will get

his dead body in front of your gate.” Their children received similar threats.

-- In 2005, after participating in contested national elections, opposition parties

took to the streets in protest when the ruling party announced it had won. Security

forces responded by arresting opposition leaders and thousands of demonstrators. 

Hundreds were killed, and some were imprisoned for long periods. Tegegn testified

that he avoided imprisonment by hiding with relatives and friends for three months.

-4-
-- Tegegn’s wife’s affidavit recites that, after he left for the United States, she

received callsfrom unknown persons asking his whereabouts. When she said he was

undergoing medical treatment and would return when it was finished, they told her

they wanted him back by the end of August 2009. 

On appeal, Tegegn argues that the 2002 hit-and-run incident -- a “specific,

credible, and immediate threat of death on account of political opinion” -- established

past persecution. Corado, 384 F.3d at 947. We disagree. Tegegn testified this was

a method often used by the government to eliminate political opponents. But he

presented no evidence corroborating that opinion. Because the car approached

Tegegn from behind, there is no compelling evidence that this was an intentional

assault; if it was, Tegegn was unable to identify his attackers. Thus, the record fully

supports the IJ’s findings that “there is no evidence that ties the car to the

government,” and it is undisputed that Tegegn remained in Ethiopia unharmed for

years following this incident. After careful review, we conclude the administrative

record amply supports the BIA’s finding that Tegegn suffered only intimidation,

harassment, and unfulfilled threats of physical injury that did not establish past

persecution. See Malonga v. Holder, 621 F.3d 757, 764, 766 (8th Cir. 2010)

(upholding BIA’s finding of no past persecution because death threats were

“exaggerated, nonspecific, or lacking in immediacy”); Quomsieh, 479 F.3d at 606.

II. Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution

Even if an applicant fails to establish past persecution, he can qualify for

asylum by showing well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2). 

To be well-founded, the applicant’s fear of future persecution must be “both

subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d

977, 983 (8th Cir. 2005). In most cases, this requires a showing of an objectively

reasonable fear of particularized persecution on the basis of his political opinion. 

Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 1997). However, an applicant can also

-5-
prove a well-founded fear by showing (A) a “pattern or practice . . . of persecution of

a group of persons similarly situated to the applicant on account of . . . political

opinion,” and (B) “his or her own inclusion in, and identification with, such group of

persons such that his or her fear of persecution upon return is reasonable.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.13(b)(2)(iii); see Makonnen v. INS, 44 F.3d 1378, 1382-83 (8th Cir. 1995). “A

pattern or practice of persecution must be systemic, pervasive, or organized.” 

Woldemichael v. Ashcroft, 448 F.3d 1000, 1004 (8th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). 

Tegegn argues the BIA erred in finding that he failed to prove a well-founded

fear of persecution based upon the Ethiopian ruling party’s pattern or practice of

persecuting leaders of opposition political groups. His Memorandum to the IJ,

though focused primarily on the issue of past persecution, clearly raised this issue:

Ethiopia today is a classic lawless dictatorship. . . . Political opponents

are regularly killed with impunity, including members of the AAPO.

Security forces know that they can torture and kill people whenever they

choose, and a corrupt judiciary will do nothing. . . . Bogale Tegegn

believes that if he is sent back to Ethiopia he will be a target of the

security forces.

Likewise, his brief to the BIA included this issue, arguing that State Department and

other reports in the administrative record establisheda deadly pattern and practice of killing, imprisonment and permanent

disappearance of political opponents. This is true not only for AAPO

leaders but also for leaders of other opposition parties in Ethiopia. 

Tegegn is clearly a vocal leader of a major opposition party, and is

“similarly situated.”

In support of this pattern or practice claim, Tegegn testified that he was a longtime leader of the AAPO, an opposition group, and knew of two AAPO leaders and

another member who were killed, one in 1999 and two in 2002. His affidavit listed,

-6-
by name and political affiliation, dozens of government opponents who allegedly

have “disappeared” or been killed, harmed, or imprisoned by the current Ethiopian

regime, or who fled the country. He submitted two affidavits corroborating his

testimony that he is an AAPO leader, testimony the IJ found credible. The lengthy

affidavit of Dr. Bekele Mamo, an Ethiopian citizen who is now a lawful permanent

resident of this county, averred that “[t]he Ethiopian government continues to carry

out terror and systematic social and political assaultsto punish critics and opposition

activists.” Dr. Mamo described new laws -- detailed in an Amnesty International

report -- thatsubject non-violent political dissentersto broad police powers and harsh

criminal penalties. Dr. Mamo stated that Tegegn “is a selected opposition party

member being sought after and may already be on their ‘black’ list,” and that return

to Ethiopia would endanger his life.

The administrative record also includes 2008 and 2009 State Department

Human Rights Reports and other sources detailing examples of disappearances,

killings, arrests, beatings, and other abuses by the government against leaders and

members of opposition political groups. Though most widespread after the contested

2005 election, when Tegegn testified he went into hiding to avoid imprisonment, the

abuses apparently continue. For example, the 2009 State Department Report stated,

“Human rights abuses reported during the year included unlawful killings, torture,

beating, abuse and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security

forces, often acting with evident impunity.” In addition, the Report states, “The

government continued to arrest, harass, and prosecute journalists, publishers, and

editors.” 

After analyzing Tegegn’s claim of past persecution in some detail, the BIA

gave this claim of well-founded fear little or no consideration. The BIA began by

characterizing Tegegn’s pattern or practice claim as “based on his membership and

active support of the [AAPO].” That unduly limits the claim. While Tegegn’s claim

of past persecution focused on his leadership positions in the AAPO, his claim of a

-7-
well-founded fear of future persecution was explicitly based on the government’s

alleged pattern or practice of persecuting leaders or active supporters of all opposing

political groups. He explained that the government has kept opposition political

parties fractured by requiring them to organize along ethnic lines, and then has

suppressed opposition by systematically persecuting any leaders who persist in

opposing the government. This is a not-implausible claim of pattern or practice

political persecution. Such persecution can be confined to a particular opposing

political party or ethnic group, but it can also be directed at a broader group made up

of all who assume leadership of groups opposing the group in power. Compare Kyaw

Zwar Tun v. INS, 445 F.3d 554, 570 (2d Cir. 2006) (remanding for consideration of

possible pattern or practice of persecution against pro-democracy activists). 

TheBIA acknowledged the pattern or practice standard but summarily rejected

this claim: “Although [Tegegn] raises a claim that there is a pattern or practice of

persecution of persons similarly situated to him, no cogent argument for its existence

has been made.” In light of the extensive evidence we have briefly summarized, and

the above-quoted portion of Tegegn’s brief to the BIA, we cannot agree that no

cogent argument was made. 

Asylum claims based on an alleged pattern or practice of political persecution

raise complex and difficult issues, particularly in a country such as Ethiopia that is

plagued by ethnic rivalries and has experienced dramatic political upheavals. 

Compare Gemechu v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 944, 946-47 (8th Cir. 2004), and

Wondmneh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1096, 1098 (8th Cir. 2004), with Feleke, 118 F.3d

at 598-99, and Makonnen, 44 F.3d at 1382-84. In considering such a claim, the

relevant political group or groups must be identified, and the applicant’s inclusion in

the group established. Even if the government has not threatened all members of a

political opposition with systematic persecution, the risk that a particular applicant

will be persecuted “can rise to the level required for establishing a well-founded fear

of persecution . . . as a result of an individual’s activities in support of the group.”

-8-
Makonnen, 44 F.3d at 1383. Here, these issues were clearly raised by Tegegn and

supported by credible evidence, yet the BIA made no findings regarding either the

subjective or objective components of the well-founded fear analysis. In these

circumstances, we must remand because we lack “reasons that are ‘specific’ enough

that a reviewing court can appreciate the reasoning behind the [agency’s] decision

and perform the requisite judicial review,” which in asylum cases is highly

deferential. Singh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 553, 557 (8th Cir. 2007).

For these reasons, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for

further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

______________________________

-9-