Opinion ID: 2977293
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Humanitarian-Asylum Claims

Text: Finally, the Martinis argue that they are eligible for humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B). The Martinis raised this claim before the IJ and the BIA, but neither expressly ruled on this issue. Humanitarian asylum is a type of discretionary relief that is granted to asylum seekers who cannot show that they have a “well-founded fear of persecution” but who have “established that there is a reasonable possibility that [they] may suffer other serious harm upon removal” to the applicant’s country of nationality. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B). We have explained that this “‘[other-serious-harm] provision provides a second avenue of relief for victims of past persecution whose fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground has been rebutted by evidence of changed country conditions or of safe harbors within his or her home country.’” Ben Hamida v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 734, 741 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Liti v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631, 641-42 (6th Cir. 2005)) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). We have stated that “it is the BIA, rather than this court, which is the proper forum” to address initially a claim for humanitarian asylum. Liti, 411 F.3d at 642. Accordingly, in an appropriate case, if the BIA failed to address explicitly a request for humanitarian asylum, we would remand the case to allow the BIA to make that determination. See, e.g., Neli v. Ashcroft, 85 F. App’x 433, 437-38 (6th Cir. 2003). The Martinis’ case, however, does not require remand. As detailed above, the Martinis have not presented credible evidence of past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. Because a showing of past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution is an essential element of a successful humanitarian-asylum claim, the Martinis cannot succeed on this 12 claim and are ineligible for humanitarian asylum.9 See Ben Hamida, 478 F.3d at 741 (“[Petitioners] have failed to offer credible evidence that they were persecuted in Tunisia. Therefore, their claim for humanitarian asylum must fail.”). Thus, we deny the Martinis’ petition seeking review of the BIA’s failure to consider their claims for humanitarian asylum.