Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03665/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03665-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Yacouba Berte
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3665

___________

Yacouba Berte, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petitioner for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: December 14, 2004

Filed: February 4, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Yacouba Berte petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) that affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for

asylum and withholding of removal and denied his request to supplement the record.

After review of the record, we deny the petition.

I.

Berte entered the United States on June 7, 1995, on a J-1 non-immigrant

exchange visitor visa, and remained beyond his authorized stay. He filed a claim for

asylum and withholding of removal in September 1997. He was served with a notice

Appellate Case: 03-3665 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2005 Entry ID: 1863696 
-2-

to appear in late 1998. At his removal hearing in 1999, which was continued in 2001,

he conceded that he was removable, but sought asylum relief. The IJ issued an oral

decision denying asylum and withholding of removal and granting voluntary

departure.

The IJ concluded that, although Berte testified credibly, he was not entitled to

asylum or withholding of removal because although he may have been discriminated

against, he did not suffer persecution. Berte appealed the decision to the BIA,

seeking to supplement the record on appeal with various reports and articles that he

alleged showed changed country conditions. The BIA declined to allow

supplementation and both affirmed and adopted the IJ’s decision.

II.

A.

We review the BIA’s decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum or

withholding of removal for substantial evidence. Krasnopivtsev v. Ashcroft, 382

F.3d 832, 837 (8th Cir. 2004). Because the BIA affirmed and adopted the IJ’s

decision, stating that its conclusions “coincide with those the Immigration Judge

articulated,” we extend our review to the IJ’s opinion and review both decisions

together. See id. We will reverse the BIA’s decision for lack of evidence only if we

find that the evidence in the record is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder

could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992).

An alien is eligible for asylum if he is a refugee—someone who is unable or

unwilling to return to his country of nationality “because of persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in

a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The alien

bears the burden of proof to show that he meets the definition of refugee. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.13 (1999). In order to prove a well-founded fear of future persecution, an

Appellate Case: 03-3665 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2005 Entry ID: 1863696 
-3-

alien must show both that he actually fears persecution and that “a reasonable person

in the alien’s position would fear persecution if returned to the alien’s native

country.” Regalado-Garcia v. INS, 305 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2002) (internal

quotation omitted).

We have defined persecution generally as “the infliction or threat of death,

torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of” one of the grounds

enumerated in the refugee definition. Regalado-Garcia, 305 F.3d at 787; see also

Fisher v. INS, 291 F.3d 491, 497 (8th Cir. 2002) (describing persecution as involving

“a threat to one’s life or freedom”). Low-level intimidation and harassment alone do

not rise to the level of persecution. See Zakirov v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 541, 546 (8th

Cir. 2004); see also Tesfu v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 477, 481 (7th Cir. 2003) (stating that

“persecution means more than plain harassment and may arise from actions such as

detention, arrest, interrogation, prosecution, imprisonment, illegal searches,

confiscation of property, surveillance, beatings, or torture.” (internal quotation marks

omitted)). Similarly, “mere economic detriment” is not sufficient to qualify as

persecution. See Fisher, 291 F.3d at 497; Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir.

1997) (stating that “[f]ears of economic hardship or lack of opportunity do not

establish a well-founded fear of persecution”).

The evidence of discrimination that Berte presented falls far short of

persecution and fails to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Berte

testified that it is difficult for people from the northern part of the country to obtain

the identity documents that the government requires for proof of citizenship:

certificates of nationality, identification cards, and passports. Before he left the Ivory

Coast, he had difficulty obtaining his passport and never actually received the

national identification card for which he had applied. He believes that he will be

unable to renew his documentation if he returns and that he will, as a consequence,

be denied many rights of citizenship (his right to be free from harassment by

government officials, his right to vote, and his right to apply for work). 

Appellate Case: 03-3665 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/04/2005 Entry ID: 1863696 
-4-

The above-described barriers to the exercise of basic citizenship rights reflect

discrimination, but do not rise to the level of persecution that is sufficient to make a

person eligible for asylum. It is significant that Berte has “never been arrested,

detained, interrogated by authorities, or convicted of any crime,” Fisher, 291 F.3d at

495, and that he does not expect to be the object of such treatment on his return.

Sufficient evidence therefore supports the agency’s denial of asylum.

In order to be eligible for withholding of removal, the alien must prove that it

is “more likely than not” that he will be subject to persecution, a standard

significantly higher than that required for asylum eligibility. See Al Tawm v.

Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2004). Because Berte has failed to show any

likelihood of persecution, he also fails to meet “the higher burden of proof required

for withholding.” Id.

B.

Berte argues that the BIA should have allowed him to supplement the record

with additional reports and articles or, alternatively, should have remanded the case

to the IJ to consider the additional evidence. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion

to remand for abuse of discretion. See Patel v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 693, 696 (8th Cir.

2004). The BIA’s function is to review the record, not create it. See Matter of

Fedorenko, 19 I. & N. Dec. 57, 74 (1984) (stating that “all evidence which is

pertinent to determinations made during deportation proceedings . . . must be adduced

in the hearing before the immigration judge”). The BIA will not remand to the IJ to

consider additional evidence proffered on appeal if the evidence “was available and

could have been presented at an earlier hearing.” In re Adolfo Jose Grijalva, 21 I. &

N. Dec. 27, 36 (1995). Even if the evidence was previously unavailable, the BIA will

remand only if the evidence is “of such a nature that the Board is satisfied that if

proceedings before the [IJ] were reopened, with all the attendant delays, the new

evidence would likely change the result in the case.” Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N.

Dec. 464, 473 (1992).

Appellate Case: 03-3665 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/04/2005 Entry ID: 1863696 
-5-

We do not believe that this case involves such extraordinary circumstances, and

thus we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s

request. The proffered evidence described violence and political unrest generally in

the Ivory Coast, but it did not relate specifically to Berte or his family. The BIA

implied that the evidence would be unlikely to change the result because the IJ had

already received articles on violence in the Ivory Coast.

Berte urges us to consider similar evidence in his motion for judicial notice, in

which he proffers several reports on the human rights situation in the Ivory Coast.

We deny the motion. We are limited in our review and may “decide the petition only

on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based.” See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252 (b)(4)(A); see also Lukowski v. INS, 279 F.3d 644, 646 (8th Cir. 2002)

(noting that “our judicial review is limited to the administrative record”).

The petition for review is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3665 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/04/2005 Entry ID: 1863696