## Facts

- Sofia Campos-Guardado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in 1984 and conceded deportability.
- She applied for asylum and withholding of deportation, alleging persecution based on events tied to political violence in El Salvador.
- Campos visited her uncle, who chaired a local agricultural cooperative formed after agrarian land reform.
- After her uncle refused a demand for cooperative funds, armed assailants forced Campos, her uncle, and several cousins to the edge of a waste pit, bound and gagged them, killed the men, and raped the women while political slogans were shouted.
- Campos and her cousins escaped, obtained medical treatment, and Campos was hospitalized for about 15 days after a nervous breakdown.
- Campos asserted that she faced continuing danger in El Salvador and feared return.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that Campos failed to establish eligibility for withholding of deportation and asylum because she did not show persecution “on account of” a protected ground.
2. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s grant of only twelve days for voluntary departure.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review as to asylum and withholding of deportation.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that the harm, though severe, was not shown to be inflicted on account of Campos’s own political opinion or other protected status.
- The court dismissed the challenge to the twelve-day voluntary departure period for lack of jurisdiction because Campos did not exhaust the issue before the BIA.

## Legal Principles

- Eligibility for asylum or withholding requires proof that the feared or suffered persecution is “on account of” a protected ground; harm arising from civil strife or generalized unrest is insufficient without the required nexus.
- Withholding of deportation requires a “clear probability” of persecution; asylum requires at least a “well-founded fear,” and remains discretionary even when eligibility is shown.
- Under substantial-evidence review, a court will uphold the BIA’s factual determinations unless the record compels a contrary conclusion.
- A court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review an immigration claim not administratively exhausted before the agency.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of asylum and withholding because the record supported the BIA’s view that the attack was tied to the uncle’s role and funding dispute rather than persecution of Campos on a protected ground, and it refused to review the short voluntary-departure period due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies.


Campos-Guardado v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 809 F.2d 285 (5th Cir. 1987)