## Facts

- Fidele Sanon, a citizen of Burkina Faso, studied at the University of Ouagadougou (1981–1985) and taught English while working with American-affiliated entities, including the Peace Corps (as a translator) and the U.S. Information Agency.
- After a 1983 coup, the regime established Committees in Defense of the Revolution (CDRs), which enforced political conformity and pressured citizens to join.
- Sanon refused to join the CDRs and described himself as anti-communist; at his school he was labeled a “reactionary,” threatened with being reported, and targeted due to perceived insufficient revolutionary commitment.
- Sanon believed he was regarded by authorities as pro-American; after he criticized the regime in a conversation later reported, he claimed his exit visa was cancelled and that new approval would require CDR involvement.
- Sanon entered the United States in October 1987 on a student visa; after political changes in Burkina Faso, he asserted a fear of persecution if returned based on political opinion and associations.
- After his visa expired, removal proceedings began; Sanon conceded deportability and applied for asylum and withholding of deportation.
- The Immigration Judge found Sanon credible and granted asylum and withholding; on appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed, finding no well-founded fear tied to a protected ground despite accepting credibility.

## Issues

1. Whether the BIA adequately considered the record and the IJ’s findings when denying asylum and withholding after accepting the applicant’s credibility.
2. Whether the BIA provided a reasoned explanation applying the correct standards for a well-founded fear of persecution and for rejecting the IJ’s grant of relief.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit vacated the BIA’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the record did not show the BIA adequately appraised itself of the case or sufficiently explained its rejection of the IJ’s findings.
- The court did not decide in the first instance whether Sanon satisfied the asylum or withholding standards; it required the agency to address the evidence and explain its reasoning.

## Legal Principles

- Asylum requires proof of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, including political opinion.
- A well-founded fear contains subjective and objective components; the objective component may be met by a reasonable possibility of persecution, a lower threshold than withholding.
- Withholding of deportation requires a higher showing (commonly described as a clear probability) than asylum.
- When the BIA reverses an IJ who made detailed findings and found the applicant credible, it must actually consider the evidence and provide a reasoned explanation that engages with the IJ’s findings and the record.
- Courts defer to agency factfinding only when the agency’s path of reasoning is adequately explained; conclusory treatment that prevents meaningful review warrants remand.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded because the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding did not reflect reasoned consideration of the record or an adequate explanation for rejecting the IJ’s credibility-based grant, requiring the BIA to reassess and explain its analysis under the proper standards.


Sanon v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 52 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 1995)