Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Ventura

In 1993 Orlando Ventura (defendant), a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States unlawfully to seek asylum. To receive asylum, Ventura was required to show that he was persecuted or feared persecution because of his political opinions. Ventura, who had received death threats from the Guatemalan guerilla army due to his family’s relationship with the Guatemalan military, claimed that he was afraid of persecution. Ventura reasoned that his fear of persecution was related to the political opinions that the guerilla army believed he held. In 1998 an immigration judge denied Ventura’s application for asylum, finding that Ventura had failed to show that the guerilla army’s interest in him was because of his political opinions. The immigration judge also noted that the conditions in Guatemala had changed since Ventura left the country, and that it was unclear whether the guerilla army would still be interested in harming him. The Board of Immigration Appeals (the board) affirmed the immigration judge, holding that Ventura had not shown that he feared persecution because of his political opinions. The board did not consider whether conditions in Guatemala had changed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the board, finding that the evidence supported Ventura’s application for asylum. Relying on a 1997 report by the United States State Department, the court of appeals held that conditions in Guatemala had not changed to a degree that undermined Ventura’s asylum application. The court of appeals explained that it was inappropriate to remand the case to the board to answer the question of whether conditions in Guatemala had changed, because the evidence clearly supported a finding that conditions had not changed sufficiently. The government (plaintiff) appealed, arguing that the case should have been remanded to the board to determine the extent of Guatemala’s changing conditions. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.