The Fourth Circuit has reaffirmed that death threats are a form of persecution, if even the threat doesn’t come to fruition.
“Today, we similarly refuse to discount a credible death threat, as the IJ and the BIA did here, because it ‘never came to fruition.’ To do so would not only defy our precedent but would also create an untenable standard for asylum seekers. We similarly reject the government’s argument that death threats alone, ‘unaccompanied by severe physical abuse or torture, do not constitute persecution.’ The seriousness of the threat Sorto-Guzman received is corroborated by the repeated harassment, violence, and death threats she repeatedly suffered at the hands of the same Mara 18 members.” “But even if these threats were not made because of Sorto-Guzman’s religion, they nonetheless bear on the seriousness of the initial threat, the one everyone agrees was made because of Sorto-Guzman’s attending a church and wearing a crucifix. Sorto-Guzman took the December 2015 threat so seriously that she stopped attending Catholic services or wearing her crucifix necklace. It makes good, common sense that any subsequent threats from the same persons, regardless of why they were made, would make Sorto-Guzman permanently afraid to express her religious beliefs.”
The full text of Sorto-Guzman v. Garland can be found here: