## Facts

- Juan Aníbal Aguirre-Aguirre, a Guatemalan national, entered the United States without inspection and conceded deportability.
- He sought asylum and withholding of deportation based on feared persecution for his role as a student protest leader in Guatemala.
- He testified that protests opposed student bus fare increases and government indifference or complicity in disappearances and killings of political activists.
- Aguirre admitted participating in violent protest conduct, including burning buses and damaging stores; protests also included breaking windows, attacking police cars, and mistreating passengers who refused to leave buses.
- The Immigration Judge found Aguirre credible and granted asylum and withholding of deportation.
- On the INS’s appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected labeling Aguirre’s conduct “terrorist acts” and rejected a “danger to the security of the United States” theory, but reversed relief.
- The BIA concluded Aguirre was undeserving of discretionary asylum and that his conduct constituted a “serious nonpolitical crime,” barring withholding, focusing on harm to “innocent Guatemalans.”
- The BIA did not meaningfully address record evidence about threats, disappearances, or killings of student activists after Aguirre left Guatemala, nor did it evaluate the risk of harm to Aguirre if returned.
- Aguirre petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the BIA erred in interpreting and applying the “serious nonpolitical crime” bar to withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)(2)(C).
2. Whether the BIA erred by failing to consider the political objective, context, and proportionality of Aguirre’s conduct, and by failing to weigh the feared persecution upon return.
3. Whether the BIA improperly conflated discretionary asylum analysis with the statutory framework governing mandatory withholding, which turns on statutory eligibility and applicable bars.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded to the BIA.
- The court held the BIA committed legal error in its construction and application of the “serious nonpolitical crime” bar.
- The court required the BIA to conduct a reasoned assessment of the political nature of the offenses, including objectives, means, and proportionality, rather than treating civilian victimization as dispositive.
- The court faulted the BIA for failing to address record evidence about the seriousness of persecution Aguirre claimed he would face if returned and for failing to weigh that risk in its analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Whether an offense is a “serious nonpolitical crime” requires evaluating the political objective, the means and degree of violence (especially against civilians), and whether the criminal aspects are disproportionate to the political aim.
- Agency decisionmaking must consider relevant record evidence and provide a reasoned explanation; ignoring material evidence bearing on risk of persecution may constitute legal error.
- Withholding of deportation is mandatory if the applicant meets the persecution standard and no statutory bar applies; the agency must determine bar applicability through a legally correct analysis, distinct from discretionary asylum balancing.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit set aside the BIA’s denial and remanded because the BIA’s “serious nonpolitical crime” analysis lacked the required balancing of political purpose and proportionality and did not meaningfully address evidence of the harm Aguirre claimed he would face if returned to Guatemala.


Aguirre-Aguirre v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 121 F.3d 521 (9th Cir. 1997)