Background
Bojan Andric, a professional soccer player from Serbia, entered the United States on a visitor visa and applied for asylum. He claimed past persecution based on membership in a social group of Serbian soccer players targeted by hooligans and an imputed political opinion. Andric testified that after a tie game, he was beaten by fans, suffered injuries, and received subsequent threats. The immigration judge found him credible but concluded the harm did not rise to the level of past persecution and lacked a nexus to a protected ground.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Andric’s proposed social groups failed because being a soccer player is not an immutable characteristic. The court noted that Andric conceded on appeal that professional soccer playing is not fundamental to identity. Furthermore, the court found that the harm Andric suffered stemmed from personal and performance-related grievances rather than membership in a cognizable group. The court also determined that the argument regarding imputed political opinion was waived. Finally, the court declined to address whether the immigration judge’s use of boilerplate addendums denied a reasoned decision, noting that the outcome would not have changed.
A personal dispute cannot support an asylum claim.
Mustafa v. Holder, 707 F.3d 743, 752 (7th Cir. 2013)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that asylum claims based on professional sports careers or personal disputes with fans are unlikely to succeed unless the harm is tied to an immutable characteristic or a protected political opinion.