Nanic v. Lynch, No. 13-3246 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseNanic, a citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, is a practicing Muslim, but he rejects the “Bosniak” label used by governments in the region to describe Muslims in Bosnia. Nanic advocates a unified Bosnia and identifies himself as Bosnian. Nanic entered the U.S. as a nonimmigrant visitor, authorized to stay until June 8, 2007. On June 13, Nanic applied for asylum and withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A), 1101(a)(42)(A). An IJ denied relief. The B IA affirmed, finding that Nanic did not demonstrate that he suffered past persecution in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Croatia, nor did he establish a well-founded fear of persecution if returned. The BIA also rejected Nanic’s contention that the IJ deprived Nanic of due process by receiving testimony of an expert witness about country conditions and considering a document prepared by an asylum officer who interviewed Nanic. The Eighth Circuit upheld the decision as supported by substantial evidence. Nanic’s testimony about warnings from unidentified friends was too vague to compel a finding that he had a well-founded fear that is objectively reasonable, especially when members of his family continue to live in Bosnia-Herzegovina without harm, and Nanic himself returned to the country several times since 2000 without experiencing persecution.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The record supported the determination that the incidents petitioners relied upon to establish past persecution were minor and low level and did not amount to persecution; alleged government interference with petitioners' sense of self-identity did not rise the extreme level of government action needed to establish persecution; petitioners failed to establish that he had an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of persecution if they were returned to Bosnia-Herzegovina; any error in the IJ's consideration of an "assessement to refer" concluding petitioner was not credible did not prejudice petitioner as the IJ found independently that petitioner was credible.
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.