Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Stevic: Withholding Required a Clear Probability of Persecution

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 18, 2026

INS v. Stevic resolved the proof standard for mandatory withholding under the statutory language then codified at section 243(h), after the Refugee Act of 1980.

Withholding turned on probability

The applicant had to establish that persecution on a protected ground would be more likely than not if returned to the proposed country.

The Refugee Act did not silently lower that burden

The Court found that the 1980 amendments did not replace the established withholding standard with the asylum definition’s well-founded-fear formulation.

Asylum and withholding remained distinct

The two protections differed in statutory language, threshold, and consequence; eligibility for one did not automatically establish the other.

Evidence had to connect harm to the individual claim

Country conditions mattered, but the record still had to support the required likelihood of persecution for the applicant.

Key takeaways

• Plead asylum and withholding under their separate standards.
• Tie country evidence to the applicant’s characteristics and history.
• Develop probability evidence for every proposed country of return.
• Identify the protected ground and causal connection with precision.