Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03019/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03019-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Genet Gizaw Zewdie
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3019

___________

Genet Gizaw Zewdie, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Review of an Order of

* the Board of Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General *

of the United States, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: June 15, 2004

Filed: August 27, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

___________

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

Genet Zewdie petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) denying her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“Convention”). We affirm the denial of

asylum and withholding of deportation, but we remand Zewdie’s claim under the

Convention for further proceedings and consideration. 

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
1

Partly taken from United States Dep’t of State, Report on Human Rights

Practices, 2000; Makonnen v. INS, 44 F.3d 1378, 1381-82 (8th Cir. 1995).

-2-

I. Background

Zewdie, a citizen of Ethiopia, entered the United States without inspection on

August 25, 2000. She applied for asylum in September 2000. After learning of

Zewdie’s presence in this country through her application, the Immigration and

Naturalization Service instituted removal proceedings. Zewdie conceded

removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention. 

Zewdie claims that she was persecuted and tortured prior to leaving Ethiopia

and that if she returned she would also be tortured. We begin by explaining from the

records and the briefs Zewdie’s history in Ethiopia and the conditions in the country

at the time she fled. Zewdie’s father belonged to the Oromo ethnic group, the largest

ethnic group in Ethiopia, and became an active member in the Oromo Liberation

Front (“OLF”). The Oromo people established the OLF in July 1973.1

 The OLF

supports autonomy or independence for the southern provinces of Ethiopia where

most Oromo live. The Oromo possess distinct physical characteristics and have their

own language; they live throughout Ethiopia but consider the southern province their

heartland. At one time, the OLF supported the current regime headed by the

Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (“EPRDF”). However, the OLF

withdrew its support after discovering that the EPRDF manipulated the election

process. In 1993, the OLF took up arms against the government but lost to the

government military force. However, the OLF remains an active clandestine

organization in Ethiopia. 

Since the uprising, the Ethiopian government has prohibited the OLF from

political participation. Despite the OLF efforts, government interference with

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
2

The government allegedly killed her father’s brother for his OLF activities.

Government officials took her brother, possibly because he was sympathetic to the

OLF, and after Zewdie arrived in the United States, her mother and Zewdie’s

husband, who remained in Ethiopia, have disappeared. 

-3-

elections still occurs. According to the State Department’s 2000 report, the last

election held in the southern region contained numerous irregularities, including

fraud, harassment, intimidation, and political assassination. The OLF has not

garnered popular support because it has failed “to organize an effective antigovernment movement” within Oromo communities. Thomas P. Ofcansky & LaVerle

Berry, United States Dep’t of State Ethiopia: A Country Study 247 (1993). The OLF

continues to oppose the current government in Ethiopia and refuses to accept the

government as a legitimate authority. 

As a member of the OLF, her father informed the Oromo people of their rights

and obligations, criticized the current government, and recruited new members. The

Ethiopian government arrested Zewdie’s father and kept him imprisoned for two

years for supporting the OLF. The government also captured and detained other

members of her family because they supported the OLF.2

We now turn to evidence presented by Zewdie to the immigration judge.

Zewdie claimed that she did not actively participate as a member in the OLF;

however, she admitted to sympathizing with the Oromo people and supporting the

work of the OLF. Zewdie testified that the Ethiopian government did not approve of

her support of the OLF and retaliated against her by imprisoning her and having her

fired from her job. 

She claimed that her employer of ten years fired her for her connection to the

Oromo people and the OLF. In an offer of proof, she submitted a letter from her

employer stating that her termination followed the receipt of a letter from Ethiopian

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
-4-

government officials. Zewdie believes that the letter from the government informed

her employer of her Oromo heritage and her connections to the OLF. 

Her imprisonment followed a trip to her father’s village in Mojo where she

informed the Oromo living in the community of their rights and responsibilities as

citizens. During her encounters with the Oromo people in Mojo, she spoke out

against the Ethiopian government and encouraged the people to vote in an upcoming

election for candidates that best represented the interests of the Oromo people.

Members of the Oromo Peoples’ Democratic Organization (“OPDO”), an entity set

up by the government to undermine the OLF, confronted Zewdie and told her to leave

the area. 

Zewdie alleges that on returning to her home in Addis Ababa, Ethiopian

government officers arrested her for her political activities, including educating the

Oromo living in Mojo. She testified that the government held her in Maekalawi

Prison for twenty-six days before releasing her on bail. During her time in captivity,

government officers beat the soles of her feet repeatedly with wire whips and sticks.

At the hearing, she removed her shoes and showed the scars on her feet and ankles

to the immigration judge. She further testified that after her release, the officers

informed her she could not leave Addis Ababa and ordered her to report her activities

to them. Zewdie disobeyed and fled Ethiopia.

The immigration judge questioned Zewdie’s credibility, but made no specific

finding that Zewdie did not tell the whole truth. The immigration judge denied all

three claims of relief on October 4, 2001. The BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s

decision and questioned Zewdie’s credibility. Zewdie timely appeals the BIA’s

decision to this court. 

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
-5-

II. Discussion

Zewdie first argues that she qualifies for asylum or withholding of deportation.

We have considered her claims regarding these issues and agree with the immigration

judge that Zewdie does not qualify for either. However, Zewdie’s remaining

arguments for relief under the Convention merit further consideration. See Sivakaran

v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1028, 1029 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that adverse decisions on

claims of asylum and withholding of removal do not preclude a Convention claim);

Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 783 (8th Cir. 2004) (remanding Convention

claim after upholding denial of asylum and withholding of removal claims).

We give deference to the BIA’s findings of fact and overturn only if the

evidence “was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find” her

eligible for relief under the Convention. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,

483-84 (1992); Habtemicael, 370 F.3d at 779; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2004).

Here, the evidence compels us to vacate the BIA’s decision; substantial grounds exist

for believing that the Ethiopian government would torture Zewdie if she returned.

See Sivakaran, 368 F.3d at 1029 (remanding because the BIA conducted insufficient

fact-finding to deny the Convention claim); Habtemicael, 370 F.3d at 783 (remanding

the Convention claim for further fact-finding). See also Guchshenkov v. Ashcroft,

366 F.3d 554, 560 (7th Cir. 2004) (discussing the increase in reversals of BIA

decisions despite the deferential standard of judicial review and criticizing

immigration judges for their “systematic failure . . . to provide reasoned analysis for

the denial of applications for asylum”). 

Both the immigration judge and the BIA failed to credit Zewdie’s testimony

and corroborating evidence. In addition, both failed to consider Zewdie’s claims in

light of the United States Department of State report on Ethiopia. We remand

because the immigration judge failed to articulate a reasoned analysis based on the

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
3

The United Nations has reported widespread patterns of torture and ill

treatment by government officials in seventy countries, making torture a worldwide

problem. Torture occurs not merely in developing countries; the use of torture has

become disturbingly legitimized even in industrialized nations facing a perceived

threat. 

-6-

recorded evidence for denying Zewdie’s claims. In order to put Zewdie’s testimony

in context, we begin with an overview of the Convention and the conditions in

Ethiopia when Zewdie left. 

Women and children make up eighty percent of the twenty-seven million

individuals displaced from their homes worldwide; of these women, twenty to thirty

percent left their homes because they experienced torture in their home countries.

Zewdie’s testimony puts her in this category and her treatment falls within the

specific purposes behind the Convention. 

The United Nations enacted Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to combat the use of torture

throughout the world.3

 The United States ratified the Convention and it went into

effect November 20, 1994. Article III of the Convention provides that a signatory

country shall not “expel, return or extradite a person to another [country] where there

are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected

to torture” in that country. Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 §

2242, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (Oct. 21, 1998); see 22 C.F.R. § 95.1(c) (2004);

Habtemicael, 370 F.3d at 780-81. The Convention defines torture as:

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,

is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as . . . punishing

him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is

suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
4

The immigration judge all but ignored the State Department’s report, only

acknowledging that the report stated that “the OLF is an illegal organization in

Ethiopia, and it advocates the violent overthrow of the government.” The BIA made

no mention of the report. 

-7-

or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,

when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with

the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in

an official capacity. 

8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1) (2004). Torture does not include “pain or suffering arising

only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(3). 

Before the immigration judge, Zewdie submitted the State Department’s 1997

Profile on Ethiopia. The report stated:

Authorities detained hundreds of persons without charge during the

year, especially in the Oromiya and Somali regions, for supposed

involvement with the OLF and ONLF. Many were ultimately released

without an appearance before a judge. Such cases often reflect arbitrary

actions by local officials, but also result from a shortage of trained and

competent prosecutors and judges.

United States Dep’t of State, Report on Human Rights Practices, 1997. The report

went on to discuss the atrocious conditions of Ethiopian prisons and also stated that

“security officials sometimes beat or mistreated detainees.”4

With this background, we now turn to Zewdie’s specific claims. The

immigration judge and the BIA denied relief under the Convention to Zewdie, a

woman who claims to have suffered extraordinary physical pain at the hands of her

government. In order to qualify for relief under the Convention, the applicant bears

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
5

Neither the immigration judge or the BIA explicitly found Zewdie not

credible. 

-8-

the burden of showing “that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured

if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). To prove

that it is more likely than not that the applicant would be tortured in the country of

removal, “all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall be

considered.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3). Relevant evidence may include:

(i) Evidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant; 

(ii) Evidence that the applicant could relocate to a part of the

country of removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured; 

(iii) Evidence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights

within the country of removal, where applicable; and 

(iv) Other relevant information regarding conditions in the

country of removal. 

Id. 

The immigration judge and the BIA rejected Zewdie’s claims, finding that she

did not meet her burden of proof and questioned her credibility.5

 In evaluating

credibility determinations we defer to “an immigration judge’s credibility finding

where the finding is supported by a specific, cogent reason for disbelief.”

Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). An

immigration judge can base a credibility determination on the lack of corroborating

evidence if the judge also encounters inconsistencies in testimony, contradictory

evidence, or inherently improbable testimony. Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 288 (2d

Cir. 2000). 

During Zewdie’s testimony in front of the immigration judge, she removed her

shoes and showed the immigration judge the scars on the bottom of her feet and

ankles. She testified, without contradiction, that she received these scars after being

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
6

The immigration judge in his oral opinion stated in reference to the

Convention claim that:

The Court acknowledges that this is a difficult case. The

respondent demonstrated some injuries to her feet. However, there is no

medical report to indicate whether these injuries are consistent with the

type of abuse that the respondent testified to . . . . In this particular case,

considering all of the evidence presented by the respondent . . . and

considering the overall lack of meaningful corroboration in this case, the

Court believes the respondent has not met her burden of proof.

App. at 22-23. 

The BIA’s order echoed this language:

[Zewdie] has also submitted no evidence to establish that it is more

likely than not that she will be tortured in Ethiopia. 

The respondent appears to contend that it should be sufficient that

she has scars on her feet and that she showed the scars to the

Immigration Judge. However, we agree with the Immigration Judge that

-9-

beaten repeatedly over a period of twenty-six days with wire whips and sticks. She

further testified that government officers threatened her with reprisal if she left Addis

Ababa. She also submitted several documents supporting her claim. For instance,

she submitted an affidavit from Lulsseged Wolkeba, a former resident of Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia, stating that Zewdie’s “life and security would be in great danger if

she is forced to return to Ethiopia”; she submitted a letter from her brother informing

her that after she left Ethiopia, the government seized her husband and took him to

an unknown location. 

Despite Zewdie’s testimony and the evidence she presented, the immigration

judge and BIA found Zewdie not credible because she could not offer corroborating

evidence that the scars on her feet resulted from beatings and because she did not

inform the asylum officer of the beatings.6

 

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
given the lack of any doctor’s statement or other corroborating evidence

concerning the origin of the scars, coupled with the respondent’s failure

to indicate in her written application or to the asylum officer that she

was beaten on her feet, the fact that she has scars is not sufficient to

establish her claim.

App. at 3 (emphasis added).

7

Zewdie did not have counsel during her interview with the asylum officer.

Further, the translator had difficulty translating both the asylum officer’s questions

and Zewdie’s responses. In addition, during oral argument, Zewdie’s counsel noted

Zewdie’s cultural differences regarding her bodily scarring.

-10-

It is unreasonable to expect Zewdie to meet the extraordinary level of

corroborating evidence demanded by the BIA. We highly doubt the Maekalawi

Prison keeps records regarding prisoner abuse of the kind suffered by Zewdie and we

are doubtful that a tortured person in an Ethiopian prison would have access to a

physician to verify the torture. Even if such proof existed, we observe that “[i]t is

often impossible for an asylum applicant to obtain corroborating evidence from [her]

home country.” Bellido v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 840, 844 (8th Cir. 2004).

Corroboration exists for Zewdie’s testimony in the scarring on her feet; nothing more

is needed. Diallo, 232 F.3d at 288; see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (“testimony of [an]

applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without

corroboration.”). As long as the “applicant’s testimony is generally consistent,

rational, and believable,” inconsistencies in the testimony “need not be fatal to

credibility, especially if the errors are relatively minor and isolated.” Diallo, 232 F.3d

at 288. 

Zewdie’s failure to mention her beatings to the asylum officer or indicate them

on her asylum application should not be dispositive of her credibility, given the

obvious translation difficulties revealed in the record.7

 Such a communication failure

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
Ethiopian women are accustomed to abuses and have little redress within their

government. See United States Dep’t of State, Report on Human Rights Practices,

2000. Recognizing that women are less willing to discuss abuses they suffer, the

Office of International Affairs issued a memorandum instructing asylum officers on

how best to interview women seeking asylum. See Memo. from Phyllis Coven,

Immgr. & Naturalization Serv. Dir. of Off. of Intl. Affairs, to All INS Asylum

Officers, Consideration for Asylum Officers Adjudicating Asylum Claims from

Women (May 26, 1995). However, such interviewing techniques are seldom used

and unfortunately are not required. See Danette Gomez, Last in Line: The United

States Trails Behind in Recognizing Gender Based Asylum Claims, 25 WHITTIER L.

REV. 959, 963 (Summer 2004). 

-11-

does not rationally outweigh the overwhelming significance of the evidence presented

to the immigration judge. The record is clear, the scarring on Zewdie’s feet and

ankles came from being beaten. No reason exists in this record to disbelieve Zewdie.

We hold that the BIA failed to rationally assess Zewdie’s credibility on the

torture issue. In light of the evidence presented by Zewdie, no reasonable fact finder

could fail to find Zewdie eligible for relief. The evidence of past torture coupled with

Zewdie’s testimony that the Ethiopian government threatened reprisal if she fled the

country and the State Department’s report outlining the human abuses present in

Ethiopian prisons provide substantial grounds for believing that it is more likely than

not Zewdie will be tortured if forced to return to Ethiopia. For these reasons, we must

overturn the BIA’s decision. On remand, we direct the BIA to assess all of the

evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion based on a thorough analysis of the

evidence. 

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
-12-

III. Conclusion

We affirm the BIA’s determination regarding the asylum claim and the

withholding of deportation claim. We vacate the BIA’s order denying relief under

the Convention and remand for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3019

___________

Genet Gizaw Zewdie, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Review of an Order of

* the Board of Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General *

of the United States, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

ORDER

___________

Counsel for respondent John Ashcroft requests the following modification of

this court’s decision in Zewdie v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2004): (1) delete

all references to Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 288 (2d Cir. 2000), and (2) delete the

second paragraph of footnote 7. Respondent’s request for modification regarding the

citations to Diallo is denied. Footnote 7 is modified to read as follows:

7

Zewdie did not have counsel during her interview with the

asylum officer. Further, the translator had difficulty translating both the

asylum officer’s questions and Zewdie’s responses. In addition, during

oral argument, Zewdie’s counsel noted Zewdie’s cultural differences

regarding her bodily scarring.

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181 
-2-

Ethiopian women are accustomed to abuses and have little redress

within their government. See United States Dep’t of State, Report on

Human Rights Practices, 2000. Recognizing that women are less

willing to discuss abuses they suffer, the Office of International Affairs

issued a memorandum instructing asylum officers on how best to

interview women seeking asylum. See Memo. from Phyllis Coven,

Immgr. & Naturalization Serv. Dir. of Off. of Intl. Affairs, to All INS

Asylum Officers, Consideration for Asylum Officers Adjudicating

Asylum Claims from Women (May 26, 1995). However, such

interviewing techniques are, unfortunately, not required and some have

suggested asylum officers have not consistently adhered to the

interviewing techniques. See Danette Gomez, Last in Line: The United

States Trails Behind in Recognizing Gender Based Asylum Claims, 25

Whittier L. Rev. 959, 963 (Summer 2004). We do not suggest, by

implication or otherwise, that the approved interview techniques were

not applied in Zewdie’s case.

October 21, 2004

Order Entered at the Direction of the Court:

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Appellate Case: 03-3019 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804181