Opinion ID: 2975984
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Luca Family’s Asylum Application

Text: 1. The IJ’s Denial of the Luca Family’s Asylum Application In addition to their due process claims, petitioners allege that the IJ’s decision was manifestly contrary to law and constituted an abuse of discretion . Asylum applications are reviewed under a two-part test. First, the IJ must determine whether the petitioner qualifies as a “refugee” within the meaning of the INA. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A); Perkovic v. INS, 33 F.3d 615, 620 (6th Cir. 1994). Second, the IJ asks whether the petitioner merits a favorable exercise of discretion by the Attorney General. Id. The petitioner bears the burden of proof at both stages. Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 950 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Klatwitter v. INS, 970 F.2d 149, 151 (6th Cir. 1992)). The INA defines a “refugee” as any person who is unable or unwilling to return to his home country or last habitual residence “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). To establish his status as a refugee, a petitioner must demonstrate either that he has “suffered actual past persecution or that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution.” Pilica, 388 F.3d at 950 (citations omitted); see also Gilaj v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 275, 283 (6th Cir.