A Cuban family that reported police surveillance, threats against one of their children, and reprisals for their oppositional activities lost their asylum appeal in the United States after a federal court concluded that the evidence presented did not warrant recognizing that they had suffered political persecution or 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 Damas de Blanco.
In the 12-page ruling related to case file 25-14299, Judges Jordan, Luck, and Kidd upheld the denial of asylum and dismissed the appeals concerning other forms of immigration protection on procedural grounds.
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 rejection of the new Cuban Constitution and voted against it in the constitutional referendum.
From that point on, both claimed to have suffered surveillance, insults, and harassment from 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 escalated in 2021 when the family participated in a demonstration that turned violent. According to the report, some protesters overturned police vehicles, while officers fired shots into the air and struck people with batons. The four members of the family came out unscathed.
One of the most serious allegations was the threat attributed to a captain of the Cuban police, who reportedly warned that he would send one of the couple's children to a disciplinary school if they continued participating in opposition activities.
They also reported receiving 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 placing 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 request?
The migration process included police documents, personal statements, and reports from international organizations regarding the human rights situation in Cuba.
Among the evidence submitted 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 ruled that the evidence did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution according to legal standards.
A determining factor was the assessment of the testimonies.
According to the ruling, the judge found that Armas Riveron had written notes on the palm of his hand during the hearing and attempted to erase them when they were discovered.
This was compounded by responses deemed ambiguous or evasive, leading the judge to decide not to grant credibility to their testimony.
The situation of his wife was different: the court acknowledged that her testimony was credible, but concluded that the reported facts were insufficient 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 provided evidence of physical injuries during the reported incidents.
Regarding the employment dismissal, the judges noted that the connection with the couple's political activities had not been proven.
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 considered that the particular circumstances of this family supported the conclusion of the immigration authorities that there had not been sufficient evidence of a well-founded fear of future persecution.
They also took into account that, after their departure, the relatives who remained in Cuba had not suffered documented reprisals in the file.
The court stated that, although the applicants' fear may have been genuine, the evidence did not compel the reversal of 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 considered 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 failing to adequately exhaust the administrative route.
The ruling does not establish a general prohibition on granting asylum to Cubans affiliated with the Damas de Blanco or to other political opponents.
It is an unpublished resolution that examines the specific evidence and circumstances of this family.
In the United States, a person applying for asylum on political grounds must present credible evidence that establishes past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution related to their political opinions or another cause protected by law.
In addition to the credibility of testimonies, courts can assess documents, threats, assaults, individual backgrounds, and the existing conditions in the country of origin.
Related videos:
Filed under: