## Facts

- Izatula, a 23-year-old native and citizen of Afghanistan, arrived in the United States on January 14, 1989, and was placed in exclusion proceedings.
- The government charged him as excludable for fraud or willful misrepresentation and for lacking a valid immigrant visa; he conceded excludability for lack of a valid immigrant visa.
- He applied for asylum and withholding of deportation based on fear of harm from the Afghan government.
- Afghanistan was described in record evidence as a totalitarian state controlled by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, supported by the Soviet Union, in which citizens lacked a peaceful means to change the government.
- Izatula had actively assisted the mujahedin, an armed opposition group resisting the Soviet-backed regime.
- His brother was captured and imprisoned by secret police, and authorities sought Izatula because of his support for the mujahedin.
- The Department of State provided no applicant-specific information but pointed to country reports documenting widespread repression.
- The immigration judge denied asylum and withholding, reasoning that feared harm would be legitimate prosecution rather than persecution.

## Issues

1. Whether the harm Izatula feared for assisting the mujahedin constituted persecution on account of political opinion, rather than legitimate prosecution by a lawfully constituted government.
2. Whether Izatula established a well-founded fear of persecution for asylum and met the higher standard for withholding of deportation.
3. Whether the general proposition that prosecution for attempting to overthrow a government is not persecution applies where peaceful political change is effectively unavailable.

## Decision

- The Board of Immigration Appeals sustained the appeal.
- The Board held that Izatula established a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion based on his support for the mujahedin and the government’s interest in him.
- The Board rejected the immigration judge’s characterization of the likely punishment as legitimate prosecution, finding no record basis to treat it as internationally recognized self-defense by a lawful government.
- The Board concluded that the general prosecution-not-persecution rationale is inapplicable in countries where a coup or similar extra-constitutional action is the only effective means of political change.
- The Board granted asylum and concluded the standard for withholding of deportation was satisfied on this record.

## Legal Principles

- Persecution may be established where harm is threatened on account of political opinion, shown by evidence that the government targets the applicant for opposition activity.
- The prosecution-versus-persecution inquiry depends on context; punitive state action may constitute persecution where the regime uses punishment to suppress political opposition rather than to enforce neutral criminal law.
- The general proposition that prosecution for attempts to overthrow a lawfully constituted government is not persecution does not apply where citizens lack a peaceful, lawful means to change their government and extra-constitutional means are the only effective route to political change.
- A well-founded fear of persecution requires a subjective fear and an objectively reasonable possibility of harm, which may be supported by credible testimony and country-conditions evidence such as State Department reports.

## Conclusion

The Board granted protection, holding that in a totalitarian system without meaningful peaceful political channels, punishment for aiding armed opposition can constitute persecution on account of political opinion, and country-conditions evidence may supply the objective basis for a well-founded fear and for withholding.


Matter of Izatula, 20 I. & N. Dec. 149 (B.I.A. 1990)