## Facts

- Jopie Eduard and Yuliana Pakkung, natives and citizens of Indonesia, entered the United States as nonimmigrants (Pakkung in 1989; Eduard in 1991) and overstayed.
- The government initiated removal proceedings in 2000; the couple conceded removability.
- They applied for asylum and withholding of removal, alleging fear of persecution in Indonesia on account of their Christianity and ethnicity amid anti-Christian and anti-minority violence.
- Their applications also asserted fear of torture if returned, raising potential relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- After a consolidated hearing in 2001, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied asylum and withholding, finding no past persecution and no well-founded fear of future persecution, and did not address CAT.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed without opinion, making the IJ’s decision the final agency decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the IJ committed legal error in denying asylum and withholding by treating the claim as generalized civil disorder and misapplying the nexus and well-founded fear standards.
2. Whether the IJ committed legal error by failing to address relief under CAT when the applicants raised a fear of torture.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the agency decision and remanded for further proceedings.
- Because the BIA affirmed without opinion, the court reviewed the IJ’s decision directly.
- The court held the IJ misapplied governing asylum and withholding standards by mischaracterizing the claim as generalized violence rather than analyzing persecution “on account of” protected grounds (religion/ethnicity).
- The court held the IJ improperly required indicators akin to past individualized targeting and persecutor awareness as prerequisites for a well-founded fear of future persecution.
- The court held the IJ legally erred by omitting any analysis of CAT despite the applicants’ express fear of torture.

## Legal Principles

- When the BIA summarily affirms, the IJ’s decision is treated as the final agency decision for judicial review.
- An asylum claim cannot be rejected as mere generalized unrest where the record raises harm tied to a protected ground; adjudicators must analyze the required nexus (“on account of”).
- A well-founded fear of future persecution may exist without proof of past persecution; legal error occurs when the future-fear standard is effectively collapsed into a past-targeting requirement.
- If an applicant raises fear of torture, the agency must address potential CAT relief under the governing regulations; failure to consider CAT is legal error requiring remand.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded because the IJ applied incorrect legal standards to the asylum and withholding claims and failed to consider CAT relief that was raised by the applications and record.


Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004)