## Facts

- A married couple, natives and citizens of Iran, entered the United States in 1978 as nonimmigrant students; the wife later held status as the spouse of a student.
- They remained beyond their authorized stay and were charged as deportable for overstaying.
- The husband, as principal applicant, sought asylum and withholding of deportation; the wife sought derivative asylum through his application.
- The husband claimed fear of persecution based on political opinion if returned to Iran.
- He testified that in 1981, while at the Iranian Interests Section in Washington, D.C. to arrange funds from relatives, an employee threatened him after he stated he had participated in anti-Khomeini demonstrations in the United States.
- The immigration judge found deportability, denied asylum and withholding, and granted voluntary departure.
- The respondents appealed; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied oral argument.

## Issues

1. Whether the asylum “well-founded fear of persecution” standard is distinct from and less demanding than the “clear probability” standard for withholding of deportation.
2. What evidentiary and substantive showing establishes a “well-founded fear,” including the role of credible testimony and whether a persecutor must be shown likely to become aware of the applicant’s protected characteristic or belief.
3. Whether the husband established a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion if returned to Iran.

## Decision

- The BIA held that the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum is significantly different from, and less demanding than, the “clear probability” standard for withholding of deportation.
- The BIA overruled prior precedent to the extent it treated the two standards as convergent in practical application.
- The BIA adopted a reasonable-person formulation: an applicant establishes a well-founded fear if a reasonable person in the applicant’s circumstances would fear persecution.
- The BIA ruled that credible, consistent, and sufficiently detailed testimony may satisfy the asylum burden without corroboration.
- The BIA modified the persecutor-awareness component by requiring only that the persecutor could become aware of the applicant’s protected belief or characteristic, without requiring that awareness be “easy.”
- The BIA sustained the appeal in part and granted asylum to the husband, with derivative asylum to the wife; withholding remained governed by the higher clear-probability standard.

## Legal Principles

- Asylum eligibility under the “well-founded fear” standard requires a genuine (subjective) fear and an objectively reasonable basis for that fear, measured by whether a reasonable person in the applicant’s circumstances would fear persecution.
- The asylum standard may be satisfied even when the likelihood of persecution is less than “more likely than not.”
- Withholding of deportation applies a higher “clear probability” (more-likely-than-not) standard and is not established merely by meeting the asylum standard.
- An applicant’s testimony can alone meet the burden of proof for asylum if it is believable, consistent, and sufficiently detailed to present a plausible and coherent account of the fear’s basis.
- To show a well-founded fear, the applicant must show that a persecutor could become aware of the applicant’s protected belief or characteristic and may seek to punish the applicant for it; the applicant need not prove awareness would be easy.

## Conclusion

The BIA granted asylum after clarifying that asylum’s “well-founded fear” standard is lower than withholding’s clear-probability test, adopting a reasonable-person framework, permitting credible detailed testimony to satisfy the burden without corroboration, and relaxing the persecutor-awareness requirement to whether awareness could occur.


Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 439 (B.I.A. 1987)