## Facts

- Espectacion Bolanos-Hernandez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in September 1982 and conceded deportability.
- He applied for withholding of deportation and asylum, alleging political persecution if returned to El Salvador.
- He testified he had served in the Salvadoran army and a civilian militia and had been a member of a right-wing political party.
- Guerrillas sought to recruit him because they believed his background would help them infiltrate the government.
- After he refused to join, guerrillas threatened to kill him unless he joined them or left the country; he departed about eight days after the threat.
- He testified the threats were credible because guerrillas had killed five of his friends and had used similar recruitment tactics against his brother, whom he believed might also have been killed.
- He also presented evidence of widespread violence and guerrilla control in parts of El Salvador and stated he wished to remain neutral in the conflict.
- He additionally feared harm by the Salvadoran government based on his brother’s guerrilla association, but the reviewing court did not find it necessary to decide that ground.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the petitioner failed to show a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in El Salvador on account of political opinion for withholding of deportation.
2. Whether the petitioner established a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion sufficient for asylum eligibility.
3. Whether refusal to support either side in a civil conflict (political neutrality) can constitute a “political opinion” for asylum and withholding purposes.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and reversed the agency decision.
- The court held the record compelled the conclusion that the petitioner met the clear probability standard for withholding of deportation based on targeted death threats tied to a protected ground.
- Because the withholding standard is more demanding than asylum’s standard, the court held the petitioner necessarily established a well-founded fear of persecution and was eligible for asylum in the Attorney General’s discretion.
- The court concluded the agency had improperly treated the petitioner’s risk as merely generalized civil-war danger despite evidence of individualized threats and motivation connected to political opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Withholding of deportation requires a showing that it is more likely than not that the applicant’s life or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal on account of a protected ground.
- Asylum requires a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground; it is a less demanding standard than withholding.
- Political neutrality, including refusal to join a faction in a civil conflict, may constitute a political opinion where persecutors target the applicant because they view neutrality or refusal as politically meaningful.
- Credible, unrefuted testimony cannot be disregarded absent specific, cogent reasons; individualized threats may establish protected-ground persecution even in a country experiencing widespread violence.
- Country-conditions evidence may corroborate an applicant’s account and support the realism of threats when consistent with documented patterns of coercion and violence.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the petitioner’s credible evidence of guerrilla death threats linked to his political history and his refusal to take sides established persecution on account of political opinion, requiring withholding of deportation and rendering him eligible for asylum.


Bolanos-Hernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 767 F.2d 1277 (9th Cir. 1985)