## Facts

- Predrag Stevic, a citizen of Yugoslavia, entered the United States in 1976 on a visitor visa and overstayed.
- In deportation proceedings, he conceded deportability and agreed to depart by February 1977.
- After marrying a U.S. citizen, a visa petition was filed, but the marriage ended due to her death; the visa was revoked and deportation was ordered.
- Stevic sought reopening to request withholding of deportation under INA § 243(h), alleging persecution in Yugoslavia based on post-entry anti-communist activity and family-related political issues.
- The immigration judge denied reopening without a hearing; the BIA affirmed on the ground that Stevic had not shown a “clear probability of persecution.” He did not appeal.
- After the Refugee Act of 1980 amended § 243(h), Stevic filed a second motion to reopen seeking withholding under the amended statute.
- The immigration judge again denied reopening without an evidentiary hearing using the “clear probability” standard; the BIA affirmed.
- The Second Circuit reversed, holding that the Refugee Act replaced “clear probability” with a “well-founded fear of persecution” standard and that Stevic was entitled to a hearing under that standard.

## Issues

1. Whether the Refugee Act of 1980 changed the evidentiary standard for withholding of deportation under INA § 243(h) from “clear probability of persecution” to “well-founded fear of persecution.”
2. Whether courts may infer a lowered standard for § 243(h) withholding from the Refugee Act’s adoption of Protocol-based language and its “well-founded fear” refugee definition.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit.
- The Court held that an applicant for withholding of deportation under INA § 243(h) must establish a “clear probability” (likelihood) of persecution.
- The Refugee Act of 1980 did not lower the § 243(h) standard to “well-founded fear.”
- The case was remanded for evaluation under the correct “clear probability” standard.

## Legal Principles

- Withholding of deportation under INA § 243(h) requires proof that persecution is more likely than not; a “well-founded fear” showing is insufficient for withholding.
- Statutory amendments that track international non-refoulement language do not, without clear indication, displace a long-settled administrative and judicial construction of the domestic withholding standard.
- Congress may maintain different standards for different forms of protection, including mandatory withholding versus discretionary asylum or admission categories.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the Refugee Act of 1980 did not alter the burden of proof for withholding of deportation under INA § 243(h); an applicant must show a clear probability that persecution will occur if removed, and the lower “well-founded fear” standard does not govern withholding.


Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984)