## Facts

- The respondent, a native and citizen of Albania, suffered political mistreatment over many years based on anti-Communist opinion and Democratic Party activity.
- As a child, he and his family were confined in an internment camp after his father criticized the Communist government.
- In the 1990s and early 2000s, he reported threats, multiple beatings, attacks on family property, and a shooting into his apartment that wounded his son.
- Three politically active brothers obtained asylum in the United States.
- Country evidence indicated significant changed conditions, including the Democratic Party’s electoral victory and governance beginning in 2005.
- The respondent asserted continued fear because adversaries remained in Albania and his children stayed with relatives for safety; he also reported serious psychological symptoms treated with medications.

## Issues

1. Whether an applicant who proved past persecution but lacks a current well-founded fear may receive discretionary humanitarian asylum based on a reasonable possibility of “other serious harm” upon return under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B).
2. Whether “other serious harm” must be connected to the original persecution or to a protected ground, and what factors adjudicators must consider in evaluating it.

## Decision

- The BIA held that an applicant with past persecution and no current well-founded fear may still warrant humanitarian asylum based on either (1) compelling reasons arising from the severity of past persecution or (2) a reasonable possibility of other serious harm upon removal under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B).
- The BIA held that “other serious harm” may be unrelated to the applicant’s past persecution and need not be inflicted on account of a protected ground, but must be comparable in severity to persecution.
- The BIA instructed adjudicators to focus on current conditions and individualized risks, including civil strife, extreme economic deprivation, and the possibility of new physical or psychological harm.
- The BIA remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings to apply the clarified standards; it did not finally grant or deny asylum.

## Legal Principles

- Where past persecution is established, DHS may rebut the presumption of future persecution by showing changed conditions or internal relocation; rebuttal does not end the asylum inquiry if humanitarian asylum is sought.
- Humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii) contains two distinct bases that require separate analysis: (A) compelling reasons tied to the severity of past persecution and (B) a reasonable possibility of other serious harm upon return.
- “Other serious harm” under § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B) does not require a nexus to a protected ground and may be wholly unrelated to the original persecution, but must rise to persecution-level severity.
- The “other serious harm” inquiry is forward-looking and fact-specific, requiring assessment of present country conditions and the applicant’s vulnerabilities, including potential psychological harm.

## Conclusion

The BIA clarified that humanitarian asylum can be granted even after changed conditions rebut a fear of future persecution if the applicant shows either exceptionally severe past persecution or a reasonable possibility of future “other serious harm” that is as severe as persecution, even without a protected-ground nexus, and it remanded for application of these standards.


Matter of L-S-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 705 (B.I.A. 2012)