In re Carl W.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that a persecutor may have more than one reason for harming an applicant
• explaining that the protected ground “cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm”
• noting that an earlier proposed version of the standard read “a central reason,” but that Congress modified it to read “at least one central reason”
• stating that “testimonial evidence” alone may be used to meet burden of showing persecutors’ motivation
• stating that a protected ground “cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm”
• recognizing that, because “persecutors may have differing motives for engaging in acts of persecution,” an applicant need only produce evidence “from which it is reasonable to believe that the harm was ... motivated in part by an actual or imputed protected ground.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).