PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 19-2255 ________________ JEYDI L. HERRERA-REYES, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A216-587-697) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle ________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) November 13, 2019 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 28, 2020) Karen L. Hoffmann, Esq. Syrena Law 128 Chestnut Street, Room 301a Philadelphia, PA 19106 Attorney for Petitioner Katherine A. Smith, Esq. United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Room 2245 P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Attorney for Respondent ________________ OPINION ________________ KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. This case presents the question whether and under what circumstances threats of violence may contribute to a cumulative pattern of past persecution when not coupled with physical harm to the asylum-seeker or her family. We conclude the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in holding that Petitioner Jeydi Herrera-Reyes— a Nicaraguan national who received death threats from members of the governing Sandinista Party after her home was burned down, a convoy in which she was traveling came under gunfire, and a political meeting she was organizing was robbed at gunpoint—had not suffered past persecution within the 2 meaning of the asylum statute. We will therefore grant the petition for review and vacate and remand to the BIA. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Petitioner claimed she experienced past persecution as an active opponent of the Nicaraguan government. As reflected in the record and before the IJ, that government has a “de facto concentration of power in a single party”—the Sandinistas—“with an authoritarian executive branch exercising significant control over the legislative, judicial, and electoral functions.” A.R. 55 (quoting a U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report for Nicaragua). Sandinista government officials and security personnel, with widespread impunity, have imposed “arbitrary arrest and detention of suspects; . . . multiple obstacles to freedom of speech and the press, including government intimidation; . . . and partisan restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly.” Id. (same). In recent years, according to a report by human rights observers, “police generally protected or otherwise gave preferential treatment to progovernment [Sandinista] demonstrations while disrupting or denying registration for opposition groups” and “did not protect opposition protesters when progovernment supporters harassed or attacked them.” A.R. 56. Petitioner’s experience, according to testimony the IJ deemed credible, was a case in point. Before she fled to the United States, Petitioner was the leader and president of an opposition group for Liberal Party youth and was “deeply involved” in local politics. A.R. 183. As a result, she was subjected to a pattern of threatening words and conduct that she claimed rose to the level of persecution. 3 The first occurred during the 2017 mayoral election in her town, when Petitioner was working at a polling station and armed Sandinistas gathered outside threatening to “kill” or “steal” from ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals