Based on his information in the post, he qualifies as someone who has a reasonable fear of future…
Fleur Brown

Again he is not a member of a protected group. You keep focusing on the fear and willfully ignore the rest of the facts. Being a journalist is not a protected group. It is the fear combined specifically associated with a set of categories. The author does not fit one of those categories.

When you ignore the full criteria and focus on insufficient criteria you will lose the argument. When you repeatedly do it despite knowing the other criteria exist, and when knowing the other criteria are not met, you lose any credibility you might possess. If you want to continue claiming the subject qualified, use all the necessary criteria.

The criteria are defined in the international treaties.

What you are willfully ignoring or willfully remaining ignorant about:

  • The fear must be due to government actions.
  • The applicant must be part of specific groups and this must be the cause of the persecution.

For example, pissing off a crime boss doesn’t qualify you regardless of your membership in the strictly defined groups. Now if the government has shown a history of being unwilling to stop say a vigilante group from committing violence against the applicant and the violence is because of their status, that can qualify.

None of these are present in the article. The author made his case, the case didn’t meet all of the requisite criteria. It isn’t a salad bar where you get to pick some things and be good to go. It has to be a fear of persecution, not simply fear, and it must be based on protected status. According to the original author’s posted claims the persecution criteria, crucial to political asylum, was not met.

Sure he may not have posted everything. But one would assume he told officials everything. These officials likewise determined his condition did not meet the criteria. It is wishful thinking to insist that something he didn’t tell us surely qualified him.

I accept all the objective things the author put forward as having veracity for sake of discussion. Despite this his claims of persecution by INS do not withstand rational scrutiny, despite there being more “evidence” to support that than his claim of being persecuted by the Mexican government.

Based on what he wrote in his article he did not qualify. If he left anything out, which could be understood, whatever it was also did not meet the criteria as evidenced by his failure to qualify.

Fear alone is insufficient. Justified fear alone is insufficient. You can rehash the same insufficient claims all day long and not change these facts.

A single golf clap? Or a long standing ovation?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.