## Facts

- Dass, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States without inspection in October 1983 and conceded deportability.
- He sought asylum, withholding of deportation, and, alternatively, voluntary departure, claiming fear of persecution based on political opinion due to Sikh political activity.
- He testified he was a member of Dal Khasa, described as advocating Punjab’s independence; he claimed the organization did not promote violence and that his role involved speeches and recruitment.
- He described one encounter with police: he and about ten members were detained overnight after being accused of encouraging violence and were released when police concluded he had committed no violation.
- He remained in India for more than six months after the detention without further problems before departing for the United States.
- His broader assertions of persecution of Dal Khasa members and Sikh activists were stated generally and were not supported by documentary evidence of country conditions.
- A State Department advisory opinion indicated Dal Khasa members were punished only for crimes under the ordinary criminal-justice system, not for membership alone.
- The immigration judge denied asylum, withholding, and voluntary departure and ordered deportation to India; Dass appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether an applicant who presents generalized claims about country conditions without reasonably available corroborating evidence meets the burden to show a well-founded fear of persecution.
2. Whether, under prior BIA precedent, an application may be denied for failure of proof when significant evidentiary gaps exist and the applicant neither provides background evidence nor satisfactorily explains its absence.
3. Whether a single overnight detention followed by months without incident, coupled with uncorroborated general allegations, establishes a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

## Decision

- The BIA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of deportation, and voluntary departure.
- The BIA held Dass failed to meet his burden of proof and persuasion because the record contained significant, meaningful evidentiary gaps.
- The BIA found the absence of corroborating background evidence especially consequential given that the claim depended largely on broad allegations about conditions in India rather than detailed, severe, personally experienced persecution.
- The BIA concluded the limited personal incident and the lack of subsequent harm undermined the claim that authorities had a continuing interest in persecuting Dass.

## Legal Principles

- The asylum applicant bears the evidentiary burden of proof and persuasion; where significant, meaningful evidentiary gaps remain, relief ordinarily is denied for failure of proof.
- Although credible testimony may sometimes suffice, corroborating evidence is generally expected when it is reasonably available; corroboration is not merely optional in the ordinary case.
- Background country evidence may be needed to assess plausibility and credibility and to provide context, particularly when the claim relies on generalized assertions about countrywide practices or policies.
- When an applicant does not provide reasonably available corroboration, the applicant should provide an acceptable explanation for its absence; unsupported sweeping allegations may be insufficient to establish a well-founded fear.

## Conclusion

The BIA affirmed denial of relief because the applicant’s claim rested largely on generalized assertions unsupported by country-condition evidence, and his limited personal experience—an overnight detention followed by months without further difficulty—did not, without corroboration or a satisfactory explanation for its absence, establish a well-founded fear of persecution.


Matter of Dass, 20 I. & N. Dec. 120 (B.I.A. 1989)