The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the asylum petition of Bojan Andric, a Serbian soccer player, on July 1, 2026. The court found that Andric did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of persecution based on his membership in a social group. This ruling impacts Andric's ability to remain in the United States and highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking asylum due to violence linked to sports.
Bojan Andric, who entered the United States on a visitor visa, applied for asylum claiming he faced persecution from soccer hooligans in Serbia. He alleged that these hooligans targeted him due to his identity as a soccer player and an imputed political opinion. The case, filed under docket number 25-1448, reached the Seventh Circuit after Andric's claims were initially rejected by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The dispute began when Andric testified about an incident where he was attacked by members of a fan group called The Red Devils. Following a tie game, he was beaten unconscious and later received threats over the phone from individuals claiming to be associated with the group. Andric argued that these threats and the attack constituted persecution based on his social group of “Serbian soccer players.” However, the immigration judge concluded that the harm he suffered did not meet the legal definition of past persecution.
The immigration judge found Andric credible but determined that the attack he experienced did not rise to the level of persecution, as it was a single incident without lasting effects. The judge also ruled that being a soccer player was not an immutable characteristic and that Andric's social group lacked specificity. The judge noted that the threats made against him were more about personal grievances than targeting him for his identity as a soccer player.
In the appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, Andric attempted to redefine his social group as “former soccer players in Serbia.” However, the Board deemed this argument waived because it was not presented during the initial hearing. The Board upheld the immigration judge's conclusions, stating that Andric had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution.
The Seventh Circuit, led by Judge Rovner, reviewed the case and upheld the previous decisions. The court stated, “We cannot consider a new social group raised for the first time before the Board,” emphasizing the importance of presenting a consistent argument throughout the legal process. The court also noted that Andric's claims of persecution based on political opinion were not adequately supported by evidence.
The ruling indicates that the court found no compelling reason to overturn the agency's determinations regarding the lack of nexus to a protected ground. The court stated, “Any harm Andric fears in either case stems from personal and performance-related grievances, not from membership in a cognizable group.” This decision underscores the strict requirements for asylum claims, particularly regarding the need to demonstrate that persecution is linked to a protected characteristic.
The implications of this ruling are significant for Andric and others in similar situations. It highlights the difficulties faced by individuals seeking asylum based on violence linked to their professions or social affiliations. The court's decision reinforces the notion that personal disputes, even when violent, may not qualify for asylum unless they are connected to a recognized social group or protected characteristic.
Going forward, Andric's options for appeal are limited. The court's decision is final unless there are grounds for a further appeal to the Supreme Court, which is rare. There are currently no related cases pending that directly address the issues raised in Andric's petition.