Opinion ID: 75688
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merits of Claim for Asylum

Text: 24 Section 1158(a) of the Act authorizes the Attorney General, in his discretion, to grant asylum to an alien who is refugee as defined in the Act, i.e., an alien who is unable or unwilling to return to his home 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. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(a). Here the Board found that Barreto had not established that he suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution under the Act. Id. 25 The Board's determination that Barreto was not eligible for asylum must be upheld if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4); Elias-Zacharias, 112 S.Ct. 812, 815 (1992). It can be reversed only if the evidence presented by Barreto was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed. Id. 26 The Board found that the experiences described by Barreto did not rise to a level of persecution, past or future. We agree. 27 As to past persecution, the record reflects that Barreto was not physically harmed in Cuba, neither was he ever arrested or detained. At most, the evidence presented reflects that when Barreto fell out of favor with the Communist Party, he suffered employment discrimination, lost his job as a taxi driver and was forced to take menial work. This type of employment discrimination which stops short of depriving an individual of a means of earning a living does not constitute persecution. See Zalega v. INS, 916 F.2d 1257 (7th Cir. 1990); Youssefina v. INS, 784 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1986). 28 As to future persecution, Barreto claims that his anti-Castro political opinion makes him susceptible to persecution and possible torture upon his return. Barreto's expert witness testified that he will be in serious trouble when he returns, and would be incarcerated or very seriously marginalized in light of his leaving Cuba illegally and his political opinion. Other than this opinion testimony, there is no further evidence in the record to support this theory. Prosecution for violating Cuba's travel laws is not persecution within the meaning of the Act. See Janusiak v, INS, 947 F.2d 46 (3d Cir. 1991). 29 We conclude that the Board's determination that Barreto was not eligible for asylum is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record which we have considered as a whole. Elias-Zacharias, 112 S.Ct. at 815. Barreto failed to produce such sufficient evidence that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed. Id.