N-P-A

Cite as 

 (BIA 2025)                                  Interim Decision #4147




                         Matter of N-P-A-, Respondent
                       Decided by Board November 4, 2025 1
                            U.S. Department of Justice
                     Executive Office for Immigration Review
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

  The respondent did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on a pretextual
summons for his political activity and country conditions evidence that political activists
are detained and severely harmed where a similar summons did not result in harm to the
respondent’s son and the respondent lived for years in Moldova without harm.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Oksana Kozachenko, Esquire, Sacramento, California
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Brandy McClure, Assistant
Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: HUNSUCKER and GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judges;
MCCLOSKEY, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.
GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judge:


    The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals from the
Immigration Judge’s January 6, 2025, decision granting the respondent’s
applications for asylum and withholding of removal to Moldova under the
regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 2 See
section 208(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),

(b)(1)(A) (2024); 

(c) (2025); 

(a) (2020). The respondent, a native of the Soviet Union and
citizen of Moldova, opposes the appeal. 3 The appeal will be sustained.



1
    Pursuant to Order No. 6519-2025, dated December 8, 2025, the Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of N-P-A- (BIA Nov. 4, 2025), as precedent in
all proceedings involving the same issue or issues. See 

(g)(3) (2025).
Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.
2
   The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into
force for United States Nov. 20, 1994). 

(c) (2025); 

(a) (2020).
3
    The respondent’s motion to accept his late-filed brief is granted.
                                            page
                                            347
Cite as 

 (BIA 2025)                      Interim Decision #4147




    The respondent is from the Transnistria region of Moldova, which is
controlled by separatists. On October 31, 2020, the respondent was beaten
by police officers while handing out leaflets for an anticorruption political
candidate. The police officers took him to a police station where he was
beaten again and held for 2½ hours. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in
2022, the respondent regularly attended protests against the invasion. He and
his son received summonses to appear for interrogation on April 12, 2024,
based on allegations of calling for “extremist activity.” The respondent
testified that his son appeared pursuant to the summons and was released
without incident. Another summons was issued to the respondent on May 20,
2024, to appear for interrogation on May 25, 2024. The respondent left
Moldova on May 23, 2024. He testified that he used his passport to depart
from the airport in Moldova, and no government official tried to stop him.

   The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent did not suffer past
persecution in Moldova, and the respondent has not challenged that
determination on appeal. Absent past persecution, the respondent bears the
burden to show that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Moldova.

(b)(2) (2020). To establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution, a respondent must demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that
he will be persecuted in his country of nationality.               

(b)(2)(i)(B). Whether a respondent has a well-founded fear of
persecution is a legal question that we review de novo. See Matter of A-S-B-,

, 496–97 (BIA 2008) (explaining that whether an alien has
suffered harm amounting to persecution or has a well-founded fear of
persecution are legal questions reviewed de novo by the Board), overruled
on other grounds by Matter of Z-Z-O-, 

 (BIA 2015).

    On de novo review, we conclude that the Immigration Judge erred in
finding that the respondent met his burden to show that he has a well-founded
fear of persecution in Moldova. The Immigration Judge’s finding was based
on the fact that the respondent was issued a pretextual summons for his
political activity and on country conditions evidence showing that the
separatists controlling Transnistria have detained political activists and
subjected them to severe harm. However, the Immigration Judge did not
properly consider the respondent’s testimony that his son appeared pursuant
to an identical summons and was released without incident. While we
acknowledge the generalized country conditions evidence relied on by the
Immigration Judge, the specific experience of the respondent’s son
undermines his claim that he would be singled out for persecution based on
the issuance of an identical summons. The fact that the respondent was able
to remain in Moldova for several years without being physically harmed after
the October 2021 beatings while continuing to publicly engage in political
                                     Page
                                     348
Cite as 

 (BIA 2025)                          Interim Decision #4147




activity also significantly undermines his claim that he would be persecuted
in the future. See Rubio v. Bondi, 

, 578 (5th Cir. 2025)
(“[W]hen ‘an alien has endured a threat or assault but has nevertheless chosen
to stay in his home country for a period of time,’ the ‘choice to stay tends to
weaken the claim of persecution.’” (citation omitted)). So does the
respondent’s testimony that he was able to freely leave Moldova without
incident. See id. at 581 (“[T]he ability to freely travel without experiencing
detention, arrest, or harm undercuts the objective reasonability of an
applicant’s fear of future harm.”).

    Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the respondent is not eligible
for asylum because he has not met his burden to show that he suffered past
persecution or that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Moldova.
See 

(b)(1)–(2). His failure to establish a well-founded
fear of persecution necessarily means he cannot meet the higher “more likely
than not” standard required for withholding of removal to Moldova under
section 241(b)(3)(A) of the INA, 

(b)(3)(A) (2024). 

(b)(2); see also L.N. v. Garland, 

 (5th Cir. 2024)
(recognizing the higher standard for withholding of removal and that “a party
who fails to show eligibility for asylum necessarily cannot show eligibility
for withholding”). His inability to demonstrate that it is more likely than not
that he would suffer harm amounting to persecution also means that he
necessarily cannot demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would
be tortured in Moldova, as required to prevail on his CAT application. See
Rangel v. Garland, 

 (5th Cir. 2024) (“[T]orture is a higher
bar than is persecution.”); Qorane v. Barr, 

 (5th Cir. 2019)
(holding that if acts do not constitute persecution, “[i]t follows a fortiori they
do not constitute torture”).

    Lastly, we acknowledge the country conditions evidence submitted with
the respondent’s appellate brief. We have considered the United States
Department of State 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices, which
was also already considered by the Immigration Judge. Regarding the
remaining newly submitted evidence, “[w]e do not consider new evidence
for the first time on appeal.” Matter of German Santos, 

,
561 n.4 (BIA 2022), aff’d, No. 22-2072, 

 (3d Cir. Sept. 22,
2025). To the extent the submission of evidence constitutes a motion to
remand, we deny the motion. “A motion to remand for the purpose of
presenting additional evidence must conform to the same standards as a
motion to reopen and will only be granted if the evidence was previously
unavailable and would likely change the result in the case.” Matter of
L-A-C-, 

 (BIA 2015). Most of the evidence submitted
on appeal was available at the time of the hearing below. The April 2025
                                      Page
                                       349
Cite as 

 (BIA 2025)                       Interim Decision #4147




report about Russian journalists being jailed in Russia is irrelevant to the
respondent’s claimed fear of return to Moldova. Accordingly, the following
orders will be entered.

   ORDER: The appeal is sustained.
   FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s January 6, 2025,
decision is vacated.

   FURTHER ORDER: The respondent’s applications for asylum,
withholding of removal under the INA, and withholding of removal under
the CAT are denied.

   FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is ordered removed to Moldova.
   NOTICE: If a respondent is subject to a final order of removal and
willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States pursuant to the
order, to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to depart the United States, or to present himself or herself at the
time and place required for removal by DHS, or conspires to or takes any
action designed to prevent or hamper the respondent’s departure pursuant to
the order of removal, the respondent shall be subject to a civil monetary
penalty of up to $998 for each day the respondent is in violation. See INA
§ 274D, 8 U.S.C. § 1324d (2024); 

(b)(14) (2025).




                                     Page
                                     350