Lopez-Amador v. Holder, Jr., No. 10-3491 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a native and citizen of Venezuela, petitioned for review of a BIA decision affirming an IJ's denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner also sought review of the BIA's denial of her petition to reopen her case based on additional evidence. The court held that the record supported the BIA's determination that petitioner was not specifically targeted by snipers on the basis of a statutorily protected ground; petitioner was not singled out at vehicle checkpoints; and the police officer's verbal harassment in the park did not rise to the level of persecution that would qualify her for asylum. The court also held that petitioner did not meet her burden of proving a reasonable fear of future persecution. The court further held that petitioner consistently indicated in her applications that she did not fear being tortured in Venezuela and for the same reasons that she failed to prove the likelihood of persecution for purposes of asylum, her petition for relief under the CAT also failed. The court finally held that the BIA was within its discretion in determining that the new evidence of changed circumstances did not warrant reopening petitioner's case where the general report of alleged violence based on sexual orientation that petitioner submitted did not demonstrate that she was singled out and persecuted. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Court Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. The finding that petitioner did not suffer past persecution in Venezuela was supported by the evidence as there was no evidence that petitioner was specifically targeted because of her political beliefs or that harassment she experience because of her sexual orientation rose to the level of persecution; nor did petitioner establish a reasonable fear of persecution if she returned to Venezuela; request for CAT relief rejected; BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen based on its determination that new evidence of changed circumstances in Venezuela did not warrant reopening.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.