## Facts

- A German family, identifying as Christian homeschoolers, withdrew their children from public school and began homeschooling because they believed the secular curriculum conflicted with Christian values.
- German law required children to attend public school or a government-approved private school, with limited exceptions; homeschooling was effectively prohibited and consistently enforced.
- Local authorities responded to the family’s noncompliance by imposing fines for unexcused absences, sending police to escort the children to school, and initiating proceedings when the family continued and did not pay fines.
- Authorities warned of possible more severe measures, including potential removal of the children from the home if the parents persisted in violating the law.
- The family entered the United States on a visitor visa and applied for asylum.
- An Immigration Judge granted asylum, finding a well-founded fear of persecution and treating “German homeschoolers who educate their children at home for religious reasons” as a particular social group.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed, concluding the enforcement actions did not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground and that officials did not single out homeschoolers for persecution.
- The family petitioned for review in the Sixth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the petitioners showed past or feared harm “on account of” religion or membership in a particular social group under the asylum statute.
2. Whether enforcement of a facially neutral, generally applicable compulsory-schooling law can constitute “persecution,” rather than lawful prosecution for noncompliance, absent evidence of discriminatory purpose or application.

## Decision

- The court denied the petition for review and upheld the Board’s denial of asylum.
- Substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Germany’s compulsory-schooling law was neutral and generally applicable, and that enforcement was based on noncompliance rather than a protected ground.
- Even assuming the asserted particular social group was cognizable, the petitioners failed to establish the required nexus between the harm and group membership or religion.
- The court rejected the argument that conduct that might violate U.S. constitutional norms necessarily constitutes persecution for asylum purposes.

## Legal Principles

- Asylum requires a showing of persecution (or a well-founded fear of persecution) “on account of” race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
- Enforcement of a neutral law of general applicability ordinarily does not establish persecution on account of a protected ground without proof of discriminatory intent or discriminatory application.
- On petition for review, the court applies substantial-evidence review and will not overturn the agency’s factual determinations unless the record compels a contrary conclusion.
- A claim framed as membership in a particular social group still fails absent proof that the government’s actions were because of that membership rather than because of violation of a generally applicable law.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Germany’s enforcement of compulsory-schooling requirements, though burdensome to the family’s religiously motivated homeschooling, was supported by evidence as neutral enforcement against legal noncompliance and did not compel a finding of persecution on account of religion or particular social group membership; asylum was therefore properly denied.


Romeike v. Holder, 718 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2013)