## Facts

- Rosemary Mirisawo, a Zimbabwean national, entered the United States in 1999 on a G-5 visa to work as a housekeeper and left her children in Zimbabwe.
- She had worked as a live-in housekeeper since age 20 and typically lived in her employers’ homes rather than maintaining her own residence.
- Her brother Tobias was an active member of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and was severely beaten in 2002 by government supporters because of his political activity.
- In 2002, Mirisawo visited Zimbabwe, avoided association with Tobias, and bought a house intended to improve living conditions for her children and Tobias; she never lived in the house.
- In 2005, during the government’s “Operation Restore Order,” the house was substantially destroyed; the record indicated it was not necessarily wholly uninhabitable and could be used on a limited basis or repaired.
- Shortly before her visa expired, Mirisawo applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), asserting (1) past economic persecution from the house’s destruction and (2) future persecution based on imputed political opinion tied to her brother and neighborhood.
- The Immigration Judge denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding no past persecution and insufficient proof of future persecution or torture.

## Issues

1. Whether the government’s destruction of a house the applicant never occupied and did not rely on for livelihood constituted past persecution in the form of economic persecution.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that the applicant failed to show a well-founded fear/clear probability of future persecution, or that torture was more likely than not, based on imputed political opinion or other protected grounds.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review and upheld the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the house’s destruction did not amount to economic persecution of Mirisawo because it did not deprive her of her own means of survival or threaten her life or freedom.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that Mirisawo did not establish a sufficient likelihood of future persecution, relying in part on her unharmed 2002 visit to Zimbabwe and the absence of recent harm to close family members after the 2002 attack on her brother.
- The court also upheld the denial of CAT relief because the record did not show it was more likely than not that she would be tortured with government involvement or acquiescence upon return.

## Legal Principles

- Economic persecution requires economic harm so severe that it threatens the applicant’s life or freedom or deprives the applicant of basic means of survival; property destruction may qualify only when it reaches that level as to the applicant.
- In evaluating economic persecution, the agency may consider whether the applicant personally occupied or depended on the property for subsistence or livelihood.
- A past attack on a family member and claims of imputed political opinion do not, without more, compel a finding of a current likelihood of persecution; the agency may weigh evidence of continuing interest and treatment of similarly situated relatives.
- Under the substantial-evidence standard, a reviewing court must uphold agency factfinding unless the record compels a contrary conclusion.
- CAT relief requires proof that torture is more likely than not and would occur with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the agency’s denial of relief because the record supported findings that the house’s destruction, given Mirisawo’s lack of personal residence or dependence on it, did not constitute economic persecution of her, and that the evidence did not compel a conclusion that she faced a sufficient probability of future persecution or government-linked torture.


Mirisawo v. Holder, 599 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2010)