## Facts

- Nigist Shoafera, an Ethiopian citizen of Amharic ethnicity, entered the United States in January 1990 on a visitor visa.
- In Ethiopia, she worked for Hagos Belay, a Tigrean man who held a high-ranking position in the local kebele (government-linked community organization).
- After a kebele meeting, Belay forced Shoafera to a park, beat her, and raped her at gunpoint; she was found and taken to a hospital.
- A doctor treated her and produced a medical report corroborating that she had been raped.
- At Shoafera’s request, her brother reported the assault; police arrested Belay but released him after about one month without further punishment.
- Shoafera testified Belay targeted her because she was Amhara, citing his derogatory remarks about Amharas and their perceived opposition to the Tigrean-dominated regime.
- After his release, Belay threatened Shoafera and her family, warning he would “finish” her if she pursued the complaint.
- Shoafera applied for asylum and withholding of deportation; the IJ denied relief (granting voluntary departure), and the BIA affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether rape and beating by a powerful, government-linked local official constituted persecution “on account of” a protected ground, including Amharic ethnicity.
2. Whether the harm could be attributed to the state because it was inflicted by an official or by an actor the government was unable or unwilling to control.
3. Whether a showing of past persecution required application of the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution and reconsideration of asylum and withholding under the correct framework.

## Decision

- The court granted the petition for review and remanded to the BIA for further proceedings.
- The court held the record compelled the conclusion that Shoafera suffered past persecution.
- The court concluded substantial evidence did not support the agency’s view that the rape was merely a personal or random criminal act; the evidence established a nexus to Shoafera’s Amharic ethnicity.
- The court found the perpetrator’s official status and the government’s ineffective response supported treating the harm as persecution by the government or by a person the government was unable or unwilling to control.
- The court directed application of the presumption of future persecution that follows a showing of past persecution and reconsideration of asylum (and related withholding issues) under that framework.

## Legal Principles

- Rape and severe sexual violence can constitute persecution when tied to a protected ground and not treated as ordinary private crime.
- Persecution includes harm inflicted by government officials and harm inflicted by non-state actors whom the government is unable or unwilling to control.
- The “on account of” requirement may be satisfied by evidence that a protected ground (such as ethnicity) was a real motivating factor; the presence of additional personal motives does not defeat nexus where a protected-ground motive is established.
- A finding of past persecution on account of a protected ground triggers a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, which the government may rebut through proof such as changed conditions or reasonable internal relocation.
- Under substantial-evidence review, agency findings must be set aside when the record compels the contrary conclusion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Shoafera’s rape and beating by a government-linked local official was past persecution on account of her Amharic ethnicity and that the government’s ineffective response supported state responsibility; it remanded for the agency to apply the presumption of future persecution and reassess asylum and withholding under the correct standards.


Shoafera v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 228 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2000)