Political asylum; A well-founded fear of persecution; Whether “changed country conditions” made a well-founded belief in future persecution unlikely; 8 CFR § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A)

The court affirmed the BIA’s order denying petitioner-Mbonga political asylum, concluding that there were sufficient general sources of evidence the political conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo had changed and he no longer had a “well-founded” fear of future persecution if he returned there. Mbonga suffered political persecution in the Congo. However, the BIA denied him asylum because his own political party now has power there, and future persecution seemed unlikely. He argued that the BIA was not entitled to rely on the fact his own party was now in control of the country, but must “rely on specific evidence tailored to his local situation.” The court noted that the regulations create a “burden-shifting approach,” and that it is the immigration authorities, not the applicant, who has the duty to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the country’s conditions have changed in a manner that would eliminate the fear of persecution. “The government must tie that change to the specific refugee’s situation by showing that the refugee now lacks a well-founded fear of persecution.” However, the court noted that “this applicant-specific element should not be confused for a mandate to present applicant-specific evidence—say, evidence that the specific person who persecuted the refugee has died. To the contrary, general sources (commonly, country-condition reports from the State Department) regularly meet the government’s burden to show that changed conditions rebut a refugee’s well-founded fear of persecution.” In this case, the IJ relied on news articles about conditions in the Congo. A member of Mbonga’s own party had become president and entered into a power-sharing agreement with the opposing party. These changed conditions made it unlikely Mbonga would be persecuted because of his political views. The burden then shifted to Mbonga to establish that he still had a well-founded fear of persecution under the country’s current conditions. The court held that he failed to do so where “[h]e provided no detailed evidence suggesting that the local officers who persecuted him in the past continue to hold power and still seek to harm him.” While he relied on a letter he received from a friend, the court found that the BIA could reject the “speculative and conclusory allegations” that Mbonga would still face “a generic risk of harm despite the governmental change.” Thus, it denied his petition for review.