NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-2483

___________

FRANCIS G. FERNANDES, 

aka Francis Gilbert Fernandes,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A094-023-854)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Dorothy Harbeck

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 6, 2013

Before: HARDIMAN, NYGAARD and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 18, 2013)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Francis G. Fernandes, a native and citizen of India, attempted to enter the United 

States using a fraudulent visa in March 2010. The Government charged him with 

removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (for being present in the United States 
2

without being admitted or paroled) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (for not being in 

possession of a valid entry document at the time of admission). Fernandes conceded 

removability, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming persecution based on his religion 

(Catholic) and his political opinion (affiliated with the Congress and Republican Parties 

of India). An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied him relief from removal, and the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Fernandes’s subsequent appeal. Fernandes 

presents a petition for review of the BIA’s decision. 

We have jurisdiction over Fernandes’s petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). 

We consider questions of law de novo. See Gerbier v. Holmes, 280 F.3d 297, 302 n.2 

(3d Cir. 2001). We review the agency’s factual findings, including its conclusions 

concerning evidence of past persecution and a well-founded fear of persecution, for 

substantial evidence. See Chavarria v. Gonzalez, 446 F.3d 508, 515 (3d Cir. 2006). 

Under this deferential standard of review, we may not disturb the agency’s findings 

“unless the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Abdille v. 

Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 483-84 (3d Cir. 2001). 

To obtain asylum, an alien must show that he is unable or unwilling to return to 

the country in question “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); see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b). Upon review, we conclude 
3

that the agency did not err in concluding that Fernandes did not make the required 

showing.

During his testimony before the IJ, which the IJ ruled credible, Fernandes 

described several incidents that occurred in 2008 and 2009. After Fernandes ran as a 

candidate for the Republican Party, members of the Sri Ram Sena (SRS) group, whose 

primary objective is to make India an entirely Hindu state,

1 made a series of threatening 

phone calls that went on for about three weeks. Believing the threats to be serious, he 

sent his family to live with relatives in a different town, but he remained in his hometown 

of Shirva unharmed. Shortly thereafter, when Fernandes was on his way home after 

selling a cow (at a time when beef consumption was locally banned), he was approached, 

threatened, and slapped by SRS members. He also described an incident that occurred in 

September 2008, but which did not involve him directly. Several churches were attacked 

and a number of individuals were killed in Mangalore, India (a city approximately 30

miles from Fernandes’s hometown). At that time, his church requested security, which 

local police provided. Later that month, members of his church held a peace rally. 

Fernandes claimed that about a week later, when he was coming home from church, he 

was approached by four individuals from the SRS who threatened him to adopt their 

culture, with one putting a knife to Fernandes’s throat. Fernandes pushed away the man 

 

1

Sri Ram Sena is associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party, one of the major political 

parties in India.
4

holding the knife and escaped; however, when he turned away, his cheek came in contact

with the knife blade and he received a cut (which did not require stitches). In January 

2009, two SRS members accosted him when he was on his motorbike about two 

kilometers from his house. Joined by three others, they accused him of being a foreigner 

(because of the color of eyes), and one of the men swung a large tube light at him and 

bloodied his lip. He was able to escape, but he needed three stitches for the wound. The 

final incident happened in May 2009, when he was riding his bicycle to the market and 

an unidentified person threw a bottle of acid (marked with the letters “SS”) at him. He 

was mildly hurt, but his clothing protected him from being burned. 

Fernandes testified that he reported most of the incidents to the police, with the 

exception of the first two, at which time he felt it would have been useless to do so. He 

stated that the police never investigated the events (beyond going to the scene of the acid 

attack), although they took reports (and, in the case of the more general church incident, 

provided additional security measures). 

Fernandes’s experiences in 2008 and 2009, some of which resulted in minor or 

moderate injuries, although disturbing, fall short of persecution. The attacks could 

reasonably be viewed as isolated incidents that do not rise to the extreme level of 

persecution. See Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607, 615 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting that isolated 

incidents that do not result in serious injury are not considered examples of persecution). 

The remaining events were verbal threats against Fernandes’s life, economic livelihood, 

and his family’s safety. However, for a threat to constitute persecution it must be more 
5

than sinister and credible; it must be highly imminent and concrete. See Chavarria, 446 

F.3d at 518; Li v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 400 F.3d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 2005). Although 

Fernandes was physically attacked on the occasions discussed above, for the most part, 

he was able to live in his hometown without issue. Fernandes continued to participate in 

peaceful rallies and church events and to lead a fairly regular life. Therefore, those 

threats apparently were not serious or imminent. Li, 400 F.3d at 165. 

In addition to not showing that he had been persecuted in the past, Fernandes also 

failed to show that the SRS continues to be interested in harming him on the basis of his 

religion or political opinion. He claimed his fear of returning to India comes from 

hearing news that Christians were being killed.2 However, many members of 

Fernandes’s family, all of whom are Christians, continue to live unharmed in various 

parts of India. Abdille, 242 F.3d at 496 (requiring a showing of country-wide 

persecution).

Because he could not meet the requirements for asylum, Fernandes could not 

“meet the more stringent applicable standard for withholding of removal.” Yuan v. Att’y 

Gen. of the U.S., 642 F.3d 420, 426 (3d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Likewise, the 

record supports the BIA’s affirmance of the denial of CAT protection, because Fernandes 

 

2

Fernandes provided several articles reporting violence against Christians in India. The 

record also shows that, at least in 2010, the Department of State recognized there was 

some violence against minority religions in India, including Christians. However, more 

recent Human Rights Reports about India show that despite some intolerance and 

intermittent incidents of communal violence, there is no widespread persecution of the 

Christian minority in India. 
6

did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by the Indian 

government, or that they would acquiesce in his torture. Valdiviezo–Galdamez v. Att’y 

Gen. of the U.S., 502 F.3d 285, 293 (3d Cir. 2007). In fact, although the police could not 

be described as proactive in investigating the incidents, they took reports, conducted 

some investigation at least once, and provided security for his church. 

In short, we conclude the BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s order denying 

Fernandes’s applications for relief from removal. Accordingly, we will deny the petition 

for review.