Psychological Abuse as a Form of Persecution in U.S. Asylum Law

Date of Information: 11/18/2025

Check back soon; we update these materials frequently.

Overview

U.S. asylum law recognizes that persecution may be physical, psychological, emotional, or a combination of these forms of harm. It is a legal and factual error to assume that only physical assault meets the persecution threshold. Psychological abuse—particularly credible death threats, intimidation, coercive control, humiliation, severe harassment, forced witnessing of violence, and threats against family members—has long been treated as actionable persecution under controlling BIA and federal appellate precedent.

This article synthesizes the governing case law to explain how psychological harm qualifies as persecution, how death threats serve as both evidence of future fear and independent acts of past persecution, and how correctly characterizing these harms activates the presumption of future persecution under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). For the broader doctrinal structure, see the Charles International Law Research Library entry on the Basic Elements of Asylum.

I. Governing Framework: Persecution Includes Psychological Harm

A. Persecution Is Not Limited to Physical Injury

The Board of Immigration Appeals established decades ago that “persecution” means the infliction of harm or suffering, and is not limited to physical violence.

Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211 (B.I.A. 1985) (defining persecution broadly).
Matter of Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357 (B.I.A. 1996) (recognizing psychological trauma as part of persecution).

In Matter of Kasinga, the Board held that the anticipation of forced FGM, and the resulting emotional distress, constituted persecution—even before the physical act occurred. Id. at 365–66.

B. Threats and Intimidation Can Constitute Persecution

The BIA has explicitly recognized that credible threats causing significant suffering rise to persecution:

Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 171–72 (B.I.A. 2007) (“Threats alone can constitute persecution if they are of a highly imminent and menacing nature.”).

And in Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, the Board held that repeated threats, intimidation, humiliation, and emotional harm, even when combined with only modest physical injury, “in the aggregate, rise to the level of persecution.” 22 I. & N. Dec. 23, 26 (B.I.A. 1998).

C. Domestic Psychological Abuse Can Constitute Persecution

Matter of S-A-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1328 (B.I.A. 2000) (father’s emotional domination, surveillance, humiliation, and threats—combined with physical abuse—constituted persecution on account of religion).

In S-A-, emotional coercion and domination were not incidental; they were central mechanisms of persecution.

II. Death Threats: Dual Legal Functions

Death threats have unique doctrinal importance and operate in two independent ways.

A. Death Threats Are Powerful Evidence of a Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution

Courts consistently hold that a credible death threat—especially from an actor with the ability to carry it out—creates an objectively reasonable fear.

Chavarria v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 508, 520 (3d Cir. 2006) (armed men pointed guns at applicant; threats alone compelled finding of well-founded fear).
Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1045–46 (9th Cir. 2007) (credible threats against a child’s family required remand for proper analysis of past and future persecution).

The forward-looking function focuses on the objective reasonableness of fear under the asylum standard.

B. Death Threats Also Constitute Past Persecution Due to the Psychological Harm They Inflict

This is the point most commonly missed by adjudicators.

The psychological impact of a credible death threat—the fear, hypervigilance, sleep disruption, anxiety, and functional impairment—is a completed injury, not merely evidence of future risk.

Leading authorities:

Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 171–72 (threats causing “significant actual suffering or harm” constitute persecution).
Dandan v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 567, 573 (7th Cir. 2003) (death threats + severe psychological trauma = past persecution).
Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1120–21 (9th Cir. 2004) (threat-induced fear and intimidation were persecution).
Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1074–75 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Threats and attacks can constitute persecution even where an applicant has not been beaten or physically harmed.”).

Why this matters:

A properly recognized act of past persecution triggers the regulatory presumption of future persecution.

III. The Presumption of Future Persecution After Past Persecution

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1):

If an applicant establishes past persecution on account of a protected ground, DHS must rebut a presumption of a well-founded fear.

This burden shift is central to asylum law and is explained in the Charles International Law Research Library entry on the Basic Elements of Asylum.

Courts repeatedly emphasize the necessity of evaluating this presumption when threats qualify as past persecution.

Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223, 226–27 (2d Cir. 2006) (remanding because IJ’s failure to apply correct persecution standard prevented proper analysis of the presumption).
O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 25–26 (past persecution requires DHS to rebut with changed conditions).
Baballah, 367 F.3d at 1078 (finding past persecution triggered presumption of future harm, unrebutted).

IV. Distinguishing Harassment From Persecution: The Severity Threshold

It is also important to show what does not qualify as persecution. These authorities help establish the severity threshold:

Context matters.
Beskovic, 467 F.3d at 226 (“The difference between harassment and persecution is necessarily one of degree, assessed in context.”).
Non-life-threatening violence qualifies.
Id. (“Persecution includes non-life-threatening violence and physical abuse.”).
Vague threats without severity do not suffice.
Abdelmalek v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 2008) (“Somewhat vague verbal threats, unaccompanied by physical abuse or government acquiescence, did not rise to persecution.”).

This supports the webpage’s explanation that psychological persecution has criteria, but when it meets them, adjudicators cannot dismiss it as “mere harassment.”

V. Cumulative Harm Doctrine

Even when individual incidents seem minor, the combined psychological and emotional impact can establish persecution.

Key cases:

Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044–45 (9th Cir. 1998) (threats, surveillance, stalking, and intimidation cumulatively constituted persecution).
Mashiri, 383 F.3d at 1120–21 (cumulative effect of harassment, threats, vandalism, and intimidation = persecution).
O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 26 (“In the aggregate” the harms “rise to the level of persecution.”).
Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000).

VI. Psychological Harm Through Family-Directed Persecution

Threats or violence against an applicant’s family members—when aimed at controlling or punishing the applicant—can constitute persecution of the applicant.

Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1084–85 (9th Cir. 2013) (child’s suffering contributed to persecution of mother).
De Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 999, 1008–09 (11th Cir. 2008) (threats to family members were persecution).
Hernandez-Ortiz, 496 F.3d at 1044–46 (child applicants’ psychological trauma from harm to family must be considered).

Short cites: Sumolang, 723 F.3d at 1084–85; De Santamaria, 525 F.3d at 1008–09; Hernandez-Ortiz, 496 F.3d at 1044–46.

VII. Psychological Torture and Severe Emotional Coercion

Psychologically coercive conduct can independently satisfy the persecution threshold.

A. Forced Witnessing of Violence

Lopez-Galarza v. INS, 99 F.3d 954, 959–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (forced exposure to violence contributed to finding of persecution).

B. Psychological Torture During Detention

Krotova v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1080, 1084–85 (9th Cir. 2005) (emotional suffering during detention recognized as persecution).

VIII. Practical Implications for Asylum Practitioners

To properly establish psychological persecution:

Elicit detailed descriptions of how threats affected daily functioning. Use the questioning models that CIL has developed and continues to perfect.
Document fear responses and behavioral changes.
Use expert evaluations to show psychological injury.
Explicitly connect psychological harm to a protected ground.
Invoke the presumption once past persecution is established.
Distinguish vague harassment (e.g., Abdelmalek) from serious, targeted, fear-inducing threats (e.g., Baballah, Chavarria, Mashiri).
Emphasize cumulative harm—never let an IJ compartmentalize.

IX. Conclusion

U.S. asylum law firmly recognizes psychological abuse as a legitimate and often decisive form of persecution. Courts repeatedly hold that credible threats, intimidation, coercive control, and severe emotional suffering meet the persecution standard—particularly when the persecutor has the ability to carry them out.

When psychological harm is properly documented and analyzed:

It qualifies as past persecution,
which triggers the presumption of future persecution,
shifting the burden to DHS.

Psychological persecution is real persecution.
The case law is unequivocal.

Frequently Asked Questions: Psychological Abuse as Persecution in U.S. Asylum Law

1. Can psychological abuse alone qualify as “persecution” for asylum purposes?

Yes. U.S. asylum law recognizes that persecution can be psychological, emotional, or a combination of nonphysical harms, not just physical violence. Psychological abuse such as credible threats, coercive control, humiliation, or intimidation can meet the persecution standard when the harm is severe and targeted.

2. Do death threats count as past persecution?

They can. Courts and the BIA hold that the psychological harm caused by credible death threats—including fear, hypervigilance, anxiety, and loss of normal functioning—can constitute a completed act of past persecution. This is separate from their role as evidence of future risk.

3. Why does it matter whether threats are classified as past persecution?

Because past persecution triggers a regulatory presumption that the applicant has a well-founded fear of future harm under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). Once established, the burden shifts to DHS to rebut the presumption—an important procedural advantage for the applicant.

4. What kinds of psychological abuse have courts recognized as persecution?

Examples include:

Credible death threats
Severe intimidation or harassment
Coercive control within families
Forced witnessing of violence
Threats directed at family members
Psychological torture during detention
Courts evaluate the severity, context, repetition, and impact of the harm.

5. How do adjudicators distinguish “harassment” from “persecution”?

The distinction depends on degree and context, not labels. Minor slights or vague insults rarely qualify, but credible, fear-inducing threats or sustained psychological pressure can. Courts emphasize that even nonphysical harm may rise to persecution when severe, targeted, and tied to a protected ground.

6. Can harm to a family member contribute to an asylum claim based on psychological abuse?

Yes. When persecutors target family members to intimidate or control the applicant, the resulting psychological harm can constitute persecution of the applicant themselves. Courts treat this as relevant evidence of both severity and motive.

7. Does witnessing violence count as persecution?

It can. Forced exposure to violence—including the abuse of others—can inflict psychological injury that meets the persecution threshold, especially when used intentionally to punish or coerce the applicant.

8. What evidence helps establish psychological persecution?

Useful documentation includes:

Detailed testimony describing fear responses and behavioral changes
Psychological evaluations
Country reports showing persecutor practices
Evidence of threats, stalking, or coercive control
Statements from witnesses or family members
Precision matters: courts expect a clear showing of severity, motive, and impact.

9. Do vague or generalized threats count?

Typically, no. Courts distinguish “vague verbal threats” from credible, imminent, or repeated threats that produce real psychological harm. The latter may qualify as persecution; the former usually do not.

10. How does this relate to the protected grounds for asylum?

Psychological abuse must be inflicted on account of a protected ground—such as political opinion, religion, membership in a particular social group, nationality, or race. Demonstrating this causal link is essential to any asylum claim.

11. Can psychological abuse support withholding of removal?

Yes. The same harms that constitute persecution for asylum can support withholding of removal, though withholding requires a higher burden of proof (“more likely than not”). The legal standards are linked but distinct.

12. Should I get a psychological evaluation for my asylum case?

Often, yes. Expert evaluations can independently corroborate emotional suffering, trauma symptoms, and the functional impact of threats or coercive control—helping establish both severity and credibility.

Need Help with an Asylum Claim Based on Psychological Harm?

Threat-based and psychological-persecution cases succeed when the record is built with precision. If you need guidance on how to do that, click below to schedule a consultation.

Click Here to Schedule a Consultation

Other Helpful Resources:

USCIS Website on Asylum