A reasonable fear interview in the context of asylum cases is a preliminary screening process conducted by a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officer to determine whether a non-citizen has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture if returned to their country of origin. This process is typically initiated when a non-citizen subject to reinstated removal orders or administrative removal expresses a fear of returning to their country Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, Zuniga v. Barr, 934 F.3d 1083, Zuniga v. Barr, 946 F.3d 464.

The interview is conducted in a non-adversarial manner, separate from the general public, and the non-citizen may be represented by counsel at no expense to the government. The asylum officer will elicit all relevant information regarding the non-citizen's fear of persecution or torture and create a written record of the interview, including a summary of the material facts and the officer's determination Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, Zuniga v. Barr, 934 F.3d 1083, Zuniga v. Barr, 946 F.3d 464, § 208.31 Reasonable fear of persecution or torture determinations involving aliens ordered removed under section 238(b) of the Act and aliens whose removal is reinstated under section 241(a)(5) of the Act., § 1208.31 Reasonable fear of persecution or torture determinations involving aliens ordered removed under section 238(b) of the Act and aliens whose removal is reinstated under section 241(a)(5) of the Act..

If the asylum officer determines that the non-citizen has a reasonable fear, the case is referred to an immigration judge (IJ) for a full hearing to determine eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). If the asylum officer makes a negative determination, the non-citizen can request a de novo review by an IJ. The IJ's review is limited to assessing whether the asylum officer's negative determination was correct, and the IJ may accept additional evidence at their discretion Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, Zuniga v. Barr, 934 F.3d 1083, Zuniga v. Barr, 946 F.3d 464, § 208.31 Reasonable fear of persecution or torture determinations involving aliens ordered removed under section 238(b) of the Act and aliens whose removal is reinstated under section 241(a)(5) of the Act., § 1208.31 Reasonable fear of persecution or torture determinations involving aliens ordered removed under section 238(b) of the Act and aliens whose removal is reinstated under section 241(a)(5) of the Act..

The standard for establishing a reasonable fear is that there must be a "reasonable possibility" of persecution or torture, which has been defined as a ten percent chance that the non-citizen will be persecuted or tortured if returned to their home country Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, 993 F.3d 1187, Mendoza-Linares v. Garland, 51 F.4th 1146.

In the 9th Circuit, an applicant can satisfy the requirements for establishing a "reasonable possibility" of future persecution by providing credible testimony and evidence that demonstrates a reasonable fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The standard for "reasonable possibility" is generally interpreted as at least a ten percent chance of being persecuted or tortured. - 

 

• In Hermosillo v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1127, the petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable fear of persecution and torture based on credible testimony, which was sufficient to establish a reasonable fear under 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.31(g) and 1208.31(g). The court emphasized that a noncitizen must show "at least a ten percent chance of being persecuted or tortured" to meet the "reasonable possibility" standard Hermosillo v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1127.
• In Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, the alien was found to have a reasonable fear of returning to his native country under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because he was able to present his full story credibly and had the opportunity to correct the asylum officer's summary. The court noted that the reasonable fear determination should be made in a non-adversarial manner and that the asylum officer must create a written record of the determination Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803.
• In Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, 993 F.3d 1187, the court upheld the reasonable fear screening process, noting that the immigration judge properly reviewed the asylum officer's determination de novo. The court found that substantial evidence supported the adverse reasonable fear determination because the harm feared by the alien was not on account of a protected basis Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, 993 F.3d 1187.
• In Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, the court remanded the case for further consideration of the alien's disfavored group evidence. The court explained that an applicant could show a reasonable possibility of future persecution either by demonstrating that they would be singled out individually or by showing a pattern or practice of persecution against their group Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049.
• In Karouni v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1163, the court found that the alien had both a subjectively and objectively well-founded fear of future persecution based on his homosexuality, AIDS status, and Shi'ite religion. The court held that credible testimony and evidence of past persecution and threats were sufficient to establish a reasonable fear of future persecution Karouni v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1163.
• In Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, the court held that the petitioner's credible testimony about past persecution and threats due to her imputed political opinion was sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court emphasized that a well-founded fear could be based on a ten percent chance of persecution Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985.
• In Shoufu Zhao v. Mukasey, the court found that the petitioners, practitioners of Falun Gong, had established a well-founded fear of future persecution based on credible testimony and evidence of past harm and ongoing persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China Shoufu Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027.
• In Barraza Rivera v. INS, the court held that the petitioner's credible testimony about his fear of persecution by the Salvadoran military and guerrillas was sufficient to establish a reasonable fear of future persecution. The court noted that the petitioner must show a "clear probability of persecution" for withholding of deportation Barraza Rivera v. INS, 913 F.2d 1443.
• In the Matter of [REDACTED], the immigration judge found that the respondent's credible testimony was sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court noted that credible testimony might be enough to satisfy the subjective component of the fear test IN THE MATTER OF [REDACTED], Respondent.
• In re A--- T---, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) noted that once an alien has shown past persecution, they are presumed to have a well-founded fear of future persecution. The burden then shifts to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to rebut this presumption In re A--- T---, Respondent.
• In Matter of A-C-A-A-, the Attorney General vacated the BIA's decision and remanded the case for further review. The court noted that an alien might establish eligibility for asylum by showing a well-founded fear of future persecution or by demonstrating past persecution Matter of A-C-A-A-, Respondent.
• In re A--- K---, the BIA found that an applicant could establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on imputed political opinion if it is reasonable to believe that the applicant would be perceived to share their family's political beliefs upon returning to their home country In re A--- K---, Respondent.
• In re: AMERA MIKHA HIRMEZ, the BIA noted that a well-founded fear of future persecution must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. The court emphasized that the subjective fear component relies on the applicant's testimony and credibility In re: AMERA MIKHA HIRMEZ.
• In Matter of Mogharrabi, the BIA held that an applicant's credible testimony might be sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution if objective evidence is not available Matter of Mogharrabi.
• In Matter of L-S-, the BIA noted that an asylum applicant who has established past persecution but no longer has a well-founded In addition to the primary laws, supplementary materials provide further insights into the requirements for establishing a "reasonable possibility" of future persecution. These materials elaborate on the criteria and evidence needed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. One key point is that an applicant must show credible testimony and evidence that their fear of harm is both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. This involves demonstrating that the harm feared amounts to persecution and is on account of a protected characteristic such as race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The applicant must also show that the persecutor is aware or could become aware of the characteristic and has the means and inclination to persecute. Additionally, if an applicant has demonstrated past persecution, they may still be eligible for asylum if they can show compelling reasons for being unwilling or unable to return to their country due to the severity of the past persecution. Alternatively, they can establish a reasonable possibility of suffering other serious harm upon removal to that country. This underscores the importance of both past experiences and future risks in the evaluation process.

Finally, the burden of proof may shift depending on the circumstances. For instance, if an applicant has already demonstrated past persecution, the burden may fall on the Service to establish that the applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating within their country of nationality or last habitual residence and that it would be reasonable to expect them to do so.

If you are looking for representation in a Reasonable Fear Interview you can always call us. Burga Law Firm PC has a high success rate in Immigration Cases. We have represented multiple clients in Reasonable Fear Interviews. Feel free to contact Burga Law Firm PC Immigration Attorneys in Rancho Cucamonga, CA so we can help you with your Reasonable Fear Interview