## Facts

- M.A., a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in February 1982.
- In deportation proceedings, an Immigration Judge entered a final deportation order.
- On the eve of deportation, M.A., through new counsel, moved to reopen to apply for asylum under INA § 208(a), asserting fear of persecution if returned to El Salvador.
- M.A. alleged he would be compelled to serve in the Salvadoran armed forces, which he claimed had engaged in acts condemned by the international community.
- He asserted a sincere refusal to participate in such conduct and claimed he would likely be severely punished (including torture or death) if he refused military service.
- The Immigration Judge denied reopening for failure to present a prima facie case for asylum; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
- M.A. petitioned for review in the Fourth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether M.A.’s allegations and supporting country-conditions context stated a prima facie case of refugee eligibility sufficient to require reopening of deportation proceedings for an asylum merits hearing.
2. Whether anticipated punishment for refusing compulsory military service can constitute persecution on account of political opinion (or another protected ground) when the refusal is tied to opposition to a military force alleged to commit internationally condemned violence.
3. Whether evidence of international condemnation of the armed forces’ conduct is relevant to assessing whether the asserted punishment is persecution rather than neutral prosecution for draft evasion.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit panel reversed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen.
- The court held M.A. made a prima facie showing of eligibility for refugee status and therefore for consideration of asylum.
- The court remanded for proceedings to adjudicate the asylum claim on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- A motion to reopen to seek asylum requires a prima facie showing that, if the asserted facts are accepted as true, the applicant could be eligible for relief.
- Punishment for refusal to perform military service may constitute persecution, rather than ordinary enforcement of conscription laws, when the refusal is credibly grounded in opposition to participation in internationally condemned conduct and the punishment is linked to that refusal.
- Evidence that the relevant military force has been condemned by the international community may support an inference that the refusal to serve reflects a protected political opinion (or analogous protected basis) and that the threatened punishment may be persecutory.

## Conclusion

The panel held that M.A.’s claim—sincere refusal to serve in an armed force alleged to commit internationally condemned abuses and a likely risk of punitive treatment for that refusal—was enough to establish a prima facie asylum case requiring reopening and a merits hearing.


M.A. A26851062 v. I.N.S., 858 F.2d 210 (4th Cir. 1988)