Case Summary
**Case Summary: Luis Alberto Chuquillanqi-Vasq v. Eric H. Holder Jr. (Docket No. 7846783)**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Argued:** [Insert Date]
**Decided:** [Insert Date]
**Background:**
Luis Alberto Chuquillanqi-Vasq, a native of Peru, petitioned for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Chuquillanqi-Vasq, claiming persecution based on political opinion, argued that upon his return to Peru, he would face threats due to his opposition to a local political party and the actions he attributed to their supporters.
**Legal Issues:**
1. Whether the BIA erred in finding that Chuquillanqi-Vasq did not qualify for asylum based on his alleged political opinion.
2. Whether the denial of withholding of removal was justified given the evidence presented regarding the risk of persecution upon return to Peru.
3. Whether the BIA correctly assessed the eligibility for CAT protection in light of the evidence of potential torture.
**Arguments:**
Chuquillanqi-Vasq contended that the BIA failed to properly consider the evidence of his political activities and the threats he faced from political actors in Peru. He argued that the harrowing experiences and testimonies he provided were sufficient to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. The government, represented by Eric H. Holder Jr., contended that Chuquillanqi-Vasq did not demonstrate a credible fear of persecution or torture and that the BIA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.
**Court’s Decision:**
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision under the substantial evidence standard, determining whether any reasonable adjudicator could have found otherwise based on the evidence presented.
1. The court found that the BIA properly evaluated Chuquillanqi-Vasq’s claims about political persecution and concluded that he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution that could justify asylum.
2. The court agreed with the BIA’s assessment regarding withholding of removal, noting that the threats Chuquillanqi-Vasq experienced did not rise to the level of severity or likelihood of persecution required under the legal standard.
3. The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion on CAT protections, indicating that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that Chuquillanqi-Vasq would more likely than not face torture if returned to Peru.
**Conclusion:**
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review, concluding that the BIA's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, and was supported by substantial evidence. Thus, Chuquillanqi-Vasq was not granted asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection, affirming the findings of the BIA regarding the nature and credibility of his claims.
**Key Takeaway:**
The case exemplifies the hurdles faced by asylum seekers in demonstrating a credible fear of persecution and the stringent standards required to meet the thresholds for asylum and protection under U.S. immigration law.