Bojan Andric was badly beaten up by hooligans who were upset by his play and “high pay” for a Serbian soccer club, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has ruled his experience doesn’t qualify as grounds for asylum in the United States.

The ruling in Bojan Andric v. Todd Blanche is a reminder that while sports and politics are known to mix in European soccer, the details of that interaction matter greatly in whether they justify a particular outcome under immigration law.

Writing for a three-judge panel that also included Circuit Judges Candace Jackson-Akiwumi and Nancy Maldonado, Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner on Monday reasoned that “any harm Andric fears … stems from personal and performance-related grievances, not from membership in a cognizable group.”

Rovner explained that the beating incident occurred nearly a decade ago. Andric played for several clubs from 2014 to 2018, including Radnički 1923. He legally entered the U.S. on a visitor visa and then applied for asylum, a status for individuals who are in the U.S. or at the border and who can’t return to their home country due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. The scope of persecution eligible for asylum is generally limited to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

Andric, who is represented by immigration attorney Godfrey Y. Muwonge, argues for asylum mainly based on suffering past persecution for membership in a social group consisting of “Serbian soccer players who are the victim[s] of violence [from] soccer hooligans who were unsatisfied with their play.”

As summarized by Judge Rovner, Andric testified that after a draw with a rival team, members of The Red Devils—an organized group of diehard fans, commonly known in Europe as ultras—“followed him home, accused him of poor play, threatened to chase him out of town and beat him until he was unconscious.”

Andric sustained significant injuries from the attack, including facial burns, a skull hematoma and a concussion. His request for a release from the club was denied, and he was instead transferred to a different club in the same city.

Harassment by the Red Devils would continue for over a year because of Andric’s alleged “poor performance on the field.” He received threatening phone calls from callers telling him they knew where he lived. Andric was physically stalked, too, and he refrained from contacting the police because he “feared the hooligans were connected to law enforcement.” Even more distressing, Andric was aware that “these soccer hooligans had nationwide networks.”

Andric additionally argued for asylum based on what Judge Rovner termed “imputed political opinion.” He reasoned that the hooligans wrongly assumed he had reported them to the police and was “anti-hooligan.”

While Andric’s testimony was deemed credible and while his experience was disturbing, his legal argument for asylum failed to convince an immigration law judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals and ultimately the Seventh Circuit.

One reason mentioned in the Seventh Circuit’s order is that “a single beating that left no lasting impairments or limitations on [Andric’s] daily life” was insufficient to establish “past persecution” under immigration law. Although Andric received threatening phone calls, those calls “were intended merely to intimidate” him.

The immigration law judge who heard Andric’s case also reasoned that even if he experienced the requisite past persecution, the reason for the beating and threats doesn’t meet the relevant standard. That’s because the hooligans didn’t target Andric “on the basis of a protected ground—either membership in a particular social group or imputed political opinion.”

Another problem identified by the immigration law judge was that a social group consisting of Serbian soccer players who are victims of violence from soccer hooligans is too fluid. After all, membership in that group “would fluctuate with game outcomes,” since fans’ animosity would change depending on whether their club won or lost and who played well or poorly. Along those lines, the hooligans were angry with Andric because of his “performance and his high pay,” which is consistent with him—as opposed to any member group—being targeted.

Judge Rovner furthered these points by saying that Andric’s concerns are fundamentally about fans being upset with him for fan-related reasons.

“He does not claim,” Judge Rovner wrote of Andric, “that if he returned to professional soccer, and consistently led his team to victory each game, he would still face harm from the hooligans.”

She also pointed out that former soccer players are “no longer engaged in any activity that would expose them to angry fans.” Whether Andric is a current or former player appears to be a point of contention, as he has told the courts he would like to return to pro play. However, Judge Rovner skeptically wrote “he is now in his thirties” and hasn’t played professionally in about a decade. The judge also stressed Andric hasn’t provided evidence “that the hooligans would hold a decade-long grudge into his retirement.”

Judge Rovner added that if Andric returns to pro soccer and faces threats or violence, that kind of hostility wouldn’t occur because of his membership in a group but rather because of his performances in matches.

Judge Rovner acknowledged there are related but unanswered questions that go beyond the ruling, including “to what extent a person must be forced to relinquish a career and profession to avoid persecution.”

Andric acknowledged in court filings that being a pro soccer player is “just a job” and that any person can stop playing professionally. In that light, Judge Rovner surmised that in some cases a job is just a job. However, in other situations, a career might be “fundamental” to someone’s “personhood,” including because of “the artistic, political, or religious nature of the job” and the non-transferability of related skills.

The broader impact of career loss on asylum, however, will wait for another day.