What may an applicant argue if they no longer fear persecution but experienced past persecution?

An applicant who no longer fears persecution but has experienced past persecution may argue that they are unable or unwilling to return due to the severity of that past persecution. This concept is grounded in the understanding that the traumatic effects of serious past persecution can have a lasting impact on an individual's sense of safety and well-being, making it genuinely difficult for them to return to the country where they faced such harm.

In asylum law, a history of past persecution can establish a presumption that the individual has a well-founded fear of future persecution, even if their current circumstances have changed. This argument recognizes that the severity of past experiences can create a psychological barrier to return, effectively demonstrating a continued need for protection under asylum laws.

The other options do not directly address the legal premise of asylum based on past persecution. Automatic citizenship is not offered simply due to past persecution experiences; being unable to return focuses on the impact of past harm rather than current sponsorship possibilities. Relatives willing to sponsor the applicant do not negate the claims of past persecution and its psychological implications. Seeking asylum in another country also does not apply in this context, as it shifts the focus away from the individual's existing claims based on their prior experiences.