## Facts

- Jose Garcia-Ramos, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States in 1979 without inspection and was placed in deportation proceedings.
- He conceded deportability but sought asylum and withholding of deportation based on fear of persecution for political opinion.
- Garcia claimed involvement with the Frente Popular de Liberación (FPL), a leftist group opposing the Salvadoran government.
- He described activities including distributing propaganda, painting anti-government slogans, stealing food for distribution, planting decoy bombs to divert troops, acting as an armed guard/lookout, and participating in public demonstrations.
- He stated he acted openly (including that he did not wear a mask), was active for about four months, and was never arrested or charged in El Salvador.
- He left El Salvador at his parents’ urging; he obtained a passport by bribing an official and departed without difficulty.
- His parents and three sisters remained in El Salvador without reported harm.
- He submitted articles describing unrest and violence in El Salvador to support the objective basis for fear.
- The immigration judge denied asylum, withholding, and voluntary departure and found Garcia not credible.
- The BIA affirmed, concluding that even assuming Garcia’s testimony true he failed to show a sufficient likelihood of persecution.

## Issues

1. Whether Garcia proved a “clear probability” that his life or freedom would be threatened on account of a protected ground, requiring withholding of deportation under former INA § 243(h).
2. Whether Garcia showed a “well-founded fear of persecution” for discretionary asylum under former INA § 208(a), and whether the BIA’s denial was supported by substantial evidence given its treatment of credibility and record evidence.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of withholding of deportation.
- The court held the record did not compel a finding that persecution was likely, given Garcia had not been arrested or harassed and his family remained in El Salvador without incident.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of asylum and remanded to the BIA.
- The court held the BIA’s conclusion that Garcia lacked a well-founded fear was not supported by substantial evidence because asylum applies a less demanding standard than withholding and the agency’s reasoning did not adequately account for the visibility and nature of Garcia’s political activity.
- The court criticized reliance on irrelevant personal or moral considerations in assessing credibility and cautioned against treating unobstructed departure (especially where a passport was obtained through bribery) as strong proof of safety on return.

## Legal Principles

- Withholding of deportation requires a “clear probability” (likelihood) of persecution; a mere possibility is insufficient.
- Asylum requires a “well-founded fear of persecution,” a more lenient standard than withholding that can be met without showing persecution is more likely than not, so long as fear has an objectively reasonable basis.
- Failure to satisfy the withholding standard does not automatically preclude eligibility for asylum.
- Agency findings on asylum must be supported by substantial evidence and must meaningfully evaluate the applicant’s political activity and objective country-conditions evidence.
- Credibility analysis must rest on relevant considerations tied to the claim of persecution rather than unrelated judgments about personal conduct; weak inferences from the manner of exit may not negate a well-founded fear.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the denial of withholding because the evidence did not show persecution was likely, but remanded the asylum claim because the BIA applied an overly demanding approach and lacked substantial evidence for concluding Garcia did not have a well-founded fear of persecution given his public political activity and the record as a whole.


Garcia-Ramos v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 775 F.2d 1370 (9th Cir. 1985)