Court Opinion

ID: 9496971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:40:14.638064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:55.234584
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The record in this case contains substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision to deny asylum to the petitioner. We are obligated to affirm the BIA’s conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum unless the alien shows that the record evidence not only supports reversal but compels it. Navarijo-Barrios v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 561, 562 (8th Cir.2003). Petitioner’s evidence is considerably less than compelling. Even assuming that Bellido established past persecution based upon his detention in 1986 for union protest activities, the record does not show that the petitioner possessed a well-founded fear of future persecution. Regarding his possible return to Bolivia, Bellido stated:
I really don’t have any guarantees that I’m going to be able to— in a freely way go to Bolivia and maybe find a job. I really don’t know how it’s going to affect me at this time. I really don’t know, because I don’t have any guarantees of what’s going to happen .... I don’t have anything in Bolivia ... I don’t have a house, I don’t have a home, I don’t have a job, I don’t have furniture, I don’t have anything.
It is apparent from this and other comments in Bellido’s statement that he was principally concerned about his economic prospects. However, a fear of economic hardships does not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Nyonzele v. I.N.S., 83 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir.1996) (citing Minwalla v. INS, 706 F.2d 831, 835 (8th Cir.1983)).
I therefore respectfully dissent.