A Cuban family that reported police surveillance, threats against one of their sons, and reprisals for their opposition activities lost their asylum appeal in the United States after a federal court concluded that the evidence presented did not necessitate recognizing that they had suffered political persecution or that they would face such danger if they returned to Cuba.
The decision, issued on October 16, 2026, by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, affects Fidel Ernesto Armas Riveron, his wife, Viena Martínez Bernal, and their two minor children, who sought protection claiming persecution due to their connections with the opposition movement Ladies in White.
In the 12-page ruling pertaining to case file 25-14299, Judges Jordan, Luck, and Kidd affirmed the decision that had denied asylum and other forms of immigration relief.
A family that reported threats and surveillance in Cuba
According to the court file, the problems began in 2019 when the couple publicly expressed their opposition to the new Cuban Constitution and voted against it during the constitutional referendum.
From that point on, both claimed to have suffered surveillance, insults, and harassment by police agents and members of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR).
That same year, the wife lost her job at a state university. Although she suspected that the dismissal was related to her political stance, she acknowledged that she was never officially informed of the reasons.
The situation worsened in 2021 when the family took part in the protests of July 11 that led to violent events. According to the report, some demonstrators overturned police vehicles, while officers fired into the air and struck people with batons. The four family members emerged unscathed.
The four family members emerged unscathed.
One of the most serious accusations was the threat attributed to a captain of the Cuban police, who allegedly warned that he would send one of the couple's children to a disciplinary school if they continued to participate in opposition activities.
They also reported that they received police summonses and that members of the CDR came to their home to intimidate them.
Despite these pressures, the family continued to express their rejection of the Cuban government, even hanging white sheets on the balcony as a symbol of their political stance and their intention to participate in new protests.
Finally, out of fear of reprisals, they decided to leave Cuba and arrived in the United States in 2021.
Why did the court reject the asylum application?
The migration process included police documents, personal statements, and reports from international organizations regarding the human rights situation in Cuba.
Among the evidence presented were a summons and a police warning addressed to the main applicant, a summons received by his wife, a report from Human Rights Watch, and publications from Amnesty International regarding the imprisonment of Cuban activists.
However, the immigration judge found that the evidence did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution according to legal standards.
A decisive element was the evaluation of the testimonies.
According to the ruling, the judge discovered that Armas Riveron had notes written on the palm of his hand during the hearing and that he attempted to erase them when they were detected.
This was compounded by responses deemed ambiguous or evasive, leading the judge to decide not to credit their testimony.
The situation of his wife was different: the court acknowledged that her testimony was credible, but concluded that the events described were not sufficient to establish persecution in the legal sense required to obtain asylum.
The ruling states that Martínez Bernal initially claimed to have suffered a physical assault by a captain of the Cuban police, but later retracted her statement when questioned by the immigration judge. The court found that no family member had substantiated physical injuries during the reported incidents.
Regarding the dismissal, the judges noted that there was no evidence linking it to the couple's political activities.
The fact that I left Cuba also influenced the decision
Another argument used by the court was that the family was able to obtain passports and birth certificates, as well as leave the island without the authorities preventing their departure.
The magistrates acknowledged that there are reports of restrictions imposed by the Cuban government on the departure from the country of political activists.
However, they believed that the specific circumstances of this family supported the conclusion of the immigration authorities that there was no objectively founded fear of future persecution.
They also took into account that, after their departure, the family members who remained in Cuba had not suffered documented reprisals in the files.
The court held that, although the applicants' fear may have been genuine, the evidence did not warrant overturning the administrative decision.
What does the ruling mean for other Cubans seeking asylum?
The court rejected the appeal related to asylum. Regarding the protection known as withholding of removal, it found that the family had abandoned that challenge by not presenting specific arguments before the court. The request for protection under the Convention Against Torture was dismissed for not having adequately exhausted the administrative route.
The ruling does not establish a general prohibition on granting asylum to Cubans associated with the Damas de Blanco or other political opponents.
This is a resolution not published as mandatory precedent, which examines the specific evidence and circumstances of this family.
In the United States, a person seeking asylum for political reasons must provide credible evidence that establishes past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution related to their political opinions or another cause protected by the law.
In addition to the credibility of the testimonies, the courts can evaluate documents, threats, assaults, individual backgrounds, and the conditions existing in the country of origin.
Related videos:
Filed under: