Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03321/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03321-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eyad Nasri Al Yatim
Petitioner
George Nasri Al Yatim
Petitioner
Jihan Elias Al Yatim
Petitioner
Nasri George Al Yatim
Petitioner
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent

Document Text:

1

Michael B. Mukasey is substituted as United States Attorney General pursuant

to Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 06-3321/07-1456

___________

Nasri George Al Yatim; *

Jihan Elias Al Yatim; Eyad Nasri *

Al Yatim; George Nasri Al Yatim, *

*

Petitioners, *

* Petition for Review

v. * of an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Michael B. Mukasey, United *

States Attorney General,1 *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: October 18, 2007 

Filed: July 3, 2008

___________

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated removal

proceedings against Nasri George Al Yatim (Al Yatim) and his family, Jihan Elias Al

Yatim, Eyad Nasri Al Yatim, and George Nasri Al Yatim (collectively, Al Yatims).

The Al Yatims requested asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Appellate Case: 06-3321 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448918
-2-

Convention Against Torture (CAT). An Immigration Judge (IJ) determined the Al

Yatims were not likely to experience either persecution on the basis of a protected

classification, or torture if returned to the Palestinian territory. The Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. After the radical Islamic political group Hamas

won electoral control of the Palestinian Authority, the Al Yatims filed a motion to

reopen, arguing that changed country conditions warranted a reevaluation. The BIA

denied the motion to reopen. The Al Yatims challenge both the original agency

determination they were ineligible for relief, and the denial of their motion to reopen.

These petitions for review have been consolidated. We deny both petitions.

I. BACKGROUND

Al Yatim is a Palestinian Christian. Prior to coming to the United States, Al

Yatim lived with his family in Beit Sahour, near Bethlehem, in the Palestinian

territory of the West Bank. In the late 1980’s, many young Palestinians, mostly

Muslims, undertook an uprising against the Israeli government, known as the

“Intifada.” These Palestinians erected barricades and attacked the Israeli army by

throwing rocks and other projectiles. The Al Yatims’ house was located in the center

of the conflict. At night, the Israeli army required the Al Yatims, at significant risk,

to enter the street to clear rocks and other debris. During these clearings, the Al

Yatims were fired upon, and Al Yatim suffered a significant back injury from the

work, requiring surgery. Al Yatim was beaten several times by Israeli troops and his

parked car was destroyed by gun fire exchanged between the warring parties.

In 1995, the area came under control of the Muslim dominated Palestinian

Authority. In 2000, wide scale hostilities again erupted in a second “Intifada.” Al

Yatim testified that because many Christians were not participating in opposing the

Israelis, Muslim animosity toward the Christians increased. Muslims even began

firing weapons and throwing stones at the Israelis from Christian dominated

neighborhoods, in order to draw Israeli fire to those areas. The Al Yatims’ backyard

water tank and the windows of his home were damaged repeatedly.

Appellate Case: 06-3321 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448918
-3-

The Al Yatims observed and experienced numerous individual difficulties with

Muslim Palestinians. Al Yatim testified (1) his friend was beaten after blowing his

horn at a Muslim driver; (2) he had some tools stolen and Palestinian authorities did

nothing; (3) the authorities would help Muslims, but would do little to help Christians;

(4) his business, making crosses and religious sculptures for tourists visiting

Bethlehem, was seriously vandalized by a Muslim employee, after Al Yatim declined

the employee’s request for a salary increase; and (5) Muslims would harass Christian

women, making sexual comments and touching them inappropriately. 

After overstaying their visas and being charged with removability, the Al

Yatims conceded removability. The IJ denied asylum, withholding of removal, and

CAT relief. The BIA upheld this decision on appeal. After Hamas, a radical Muslim

group, won electoral control of the Palestinian Authority, the Al Yatims filed a motion

to reopen the BIA proceedings, on the basis that changed circumstances warranted

reconsideration. This motion was denied. 

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Where “[t]he BIA’s decision is the final decision of [the] agency . . . it is the

subject of our review.” Salkeld v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 804, 808 (8th Cir. 2005)

(citation omitted). “To the extent, however, that the BIA adopted the findings or the

reasoning of the IJ, we also review the IJ’s decision as part of the final agency action.”

Id. (citation omitted). When we review a BIA determination regarding eligibility for

asylum, the BIA’s findings are reviewed under a substantial evidence standard. See

Zheng v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 955, 959 (8th Cir. 2005). The BIA’s findings regarding

eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief are also reviewed for substantial

evidence. See Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405, 413 (8th Cir. 2007). This is an

“extremely deferential standard of review[.]” Salkeld, 420 F.3d at 809. Under the

substantial evidence standard, the agency’s findings of fact “must be upheld unless the

alien demonstrates that the evidence he presented not only supports a contrary

Appellate Case: 06-3321 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448918
-4-

conclusion but compels it.” Sultani v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2006)

(citation omitted) (emphasis added).

III. RELIEF REQUIREMENTS

The Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to a refugee. See

Makatengkeng v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 876, 881 (8th Cir. 2007). To establish eligibility

for asylum, the Al Yatims must show they are “unable or unwilling to return to . . .

[the West Bank] because of persecution or a well-founded 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). “[P]ersecution is an extreme concept”

that excludes “[l]ow-level intimidation and harassment.” Shoaira v. Ashcroft, 377

F.3d 837, 844 (8th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Persecution includes the credible threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s person or

liberty on account of a protected ground. See Regalado-Garcia v. INS, 305 F.3d 784,

787 (8th Cir. 2002). If past persecution is established, a well-founded fear of future

persecution must be presumed. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). “Without the benefit of the

presumption, an asylum applicant may prove a well-founded fear of future persecution

by showing an objectively reasonable fear of particularized persecution.”

Makatengkeng, 495 F.3d at 881 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The

fear must also be ‘subjectively genuine.’” Id. (citation omitted). 

Although non-discretionary, “[t]he burden of proof for withholding of removal

is higher than that required for asylum.” Aziz v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 854, 858 (8th

Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). To qualify for withholding of removal, the Al Yatims

must show a clear probability of persecution in the proposed country of removal on

the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or

political opinion. See Mouawad, 485 F.3d at 411 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)). 

To obtain CAT relief, the Al Yatims must show they will “more likely than not”

suffer torture if returned to Palestine. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). “Torture is defined

Appellate Case: 06-3321 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448918
2

As an initial matter, the government contends the Al Yatims’ claim they

suffered persecution as members of a “particular social group” is waived for failure

to exhaust the issue during the agency proceedings, and failure to specifically

articulate the nature of the “particular social group” on appeal. During the agency

proceedings and on appeal, the Al Yatims only claimed persecution on the bases of

their religion and status as Palestinians. Thus, the government is correct that any

argument the Al Yatims were persecuted on account of their membership in any other

“particular social group” is waived. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Viking

Supply v. National Cart Co., Inc., 310 F.3d 1092, 1099 (8th Cir. 2002) (stating “it is

not this court’s job to research the law to support an appellant’s argument.” (internal

alterations and citations omitted)). The Al Yatims may be arguing their religion and

ethnicity are the particular social groups on the bases of which they will be subject to

persecution. This is misguided, given that “religion” and “nationality” are separately

listed as protected classes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). We consider the Al

Yatims’ claims only as they relate to their religion and ethnicity. 

-5-

as an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is

intentionally inflicted, and it is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment; it

does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.”

Krasnopivtsev v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 832, 840 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Asylum 

The Al Yatims assert two manners in which they will be subjected to

persecution if returned to the Palestinian territory. First, the Al Yatims contend they

were persecuted, and face future persecution, by the government of Israel on the basis

of their Palestinian ethnicity. Second, the Al Yatims claim they face persecution “at

the hands of the Muslim Palestinian authorities” on the basis of their Christianity.2

 

Appellate Case: 06-3321 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448918
-6-

1. Persecution by the Israeli Government

The IJ determined the Al Yatims failed to demonstrate they would be

persecuted by the Israeli government on the basis of their Palestinian ethnicity or

Christianity. The BIA affirmed this finding, noting “the lead respondent stated that

he does not fear harm from the Israeli government.” The BIA further determined the

difficulties the Al Yatims face in the Palestinian territories are not “on account of” a

protected ground, but rather simply due to a “general state of unrest throughout the

area.”

The record does not compel a different conclusion. As to the Al Yatims’

contention they faced past persecution from the Israeli government based upon their

status as Palestinians, the record supports the BIA’s determination that these

difficulties were part of a “general state of unrest throughout the area.” Such a

situation is typically insufficient to qualify as persecution. See Mohamed v. Ashcroft,

396 F.3d 999, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Harm arising from general conditions such as

anarchy, civil war, or mob violence will not ordinarily support a claim of

persecution.” (citations omitted)). There is no indication the Israelis’ treatment of the

Al Yatims was particularized as to them. On the contrary, Al Yatim admitted the

Israelis selected “any Arab they [could] get to clean the streets[,]” and the violence

surrounding their home was due to the home’s unfortunate location where “the

Muslims were at one end of the street and the Israelis at the other.” Thus, the

agency’s determination the Al Yatims did not face past persecution by the Israeli

government is supported by substantial evidence. See id. (“To be eligible for asylum,

the harm suffered must be particularized to the individual rather than suffered by the

entire population.” (citation omitted)).

Even without a showing of past persecution by the Israelis, the Al Yatims could

still earn relief by demonstrating a fear of particularized persecution that is both

objectively reasonable and subjectively genuine. Makatengkeng, 495 F.3d at 881.

Appellate Case: 06-3321 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448918
-7-

However, as the BIA noted, the record belies such a finding, given that Al Yatim

testified he has no fear of the Israeli government.

2. Persecution by Muslim Palestinians

The IJ further found the Al Yatims had not suffered, and would not likely

suffer, persecution at the hands of Palestinian Muslims whom the authorities were

unwilling or unable to control. The IJ noted many of the harms the Al Yatims

identified were not based upon the Al Yatims’ religion, but arose out of road rage,

employment disputes, or generalized difficulties in the region. In so doing, the IJ

discounted affidavits and evidence indicating Muslims had told Al Yatim’s parents

they knew about the asylum application and the Al Yatims would be harmed if they

returned to the Palestinian territories. The IJ discounted this evidence because the

affidavits were (1) “double or triple hearsay,” (2) not notarized or authenticated, and

(3) their value was undercut by the fact Al Yatim’s parents voluntarily returned to the

region despite the supposed threats and persecution faced there. 

The claim of persecution by Palestinian Muslims presents a closer question than

the claim relating to the Israeli government. Although the record might support a

different conclusion than that drawn by the IJ and BIA, the record does not compel it,

as required for us to grant relief. See Sultani, 455 F.3d at 881.

The Al Yatims’ situation is highly analogous to Lengkong v. Gonzales, 478

F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2007). In Lengkong, the petitioner was an Indonesian Christian,

who had held leadership positions in her church. Id. at 861. On one occasion,

Lengkong and her husband were stopped in their car by a group of men wielding

sticks. Id. The men demanded the couple remove their “Jesus is my Savior” bumper

sticker, and smashed the car windows before the couple could drive away. Id. In a

separate incident, a group of people threw rocks at the couples’ home and vandalized

their fence. Id. During a third incident, Lengkong was singing in a choir at her

church when a group of people attacked, vandalized, and burned down the facility.

Appellate Case: 06-3321 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448918
-8-

Id. Lengkong testified that, during all three of these incidents, the attackers yelled

“God is the Greatest!” and in the home incident they yelled “Finish the Christians!”

Id. at 861 n.2. Finally, while riding a bus and wearing a cross necklace, a man

approached Lengkong, pressed a knife against her, asked if she was a Christian, and

only left her alone when she gave him a gold ring. Id. at 861, 863. Even in the face

of such evidence of mistreatment on the basis of her religion, the court affirmed the

BIA’s denial of Lengkong’s request for asylum. Id. at 864. The panel affirmed the

IJ’s determination that not all of the incidents were religiously motivated because this

determination was supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 862. In so doing, the

court deferred to the agency’s interpretation that the attack on Lengkong’s home was

part of widespread violence, and not particularized to them. Id. The court also

deferred to the agency’s interpretation the attack on the bus was not religiously

motivated, but was simply “a criminal act of robbery,” notwithstanding the fact

Lengkong had been wearing a cross necklace and was asked if she was a Christian.

Id. at 862-63. Finally, although the court recognized what Lengkong described was

“serious[,]” the court concluded “the injuries suffered by [Lengkong] do not

conclusively rise to the level of persecution.” Id. at 863.

Likewise, although the Al Yatims had a hard life in the West Bank, the

difficulties they faced do not rise to the level of persecution. Even more so than the

petitioner in Lengkong, the Al Yatims mostly faced difficulties arising as a result of

generalized violence. For example, even though Al Yatim’s business involved

making crosses, the IJ reasonably interpreted the vandalism as relating to an

employment dispute rather than his Christianity, and the theft of his tools was simply

generalized crime. Although Al Yatim’s wife had been sexually harassed, such

treatment does not equate with the extreme concept of persecution. See Setiadi v.

Gonzales, 437 F.3d 710, 713 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Even minor beatings or limited

Appellate Case: 06-3321 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448918
3

The Al Yatims also point to difficulties encountered by friends and relatives.

The panel is, however, precluded from considering evidence not particularized to the

petitioners. See Lengkong, 478 F.3d at 863 n.5. 

-9-

detentions do not usually rise to the level of past persecution.”).3

 Finally, the IJ

reasonably discounted evidence Al Yatim’s parents had told him threats had been

made against the family. As the IJ noted, this evidence was unauthenticated, and the

fact the parents willingly returned to the region undercut the viability of their claim.

See Setiadi, 437 F.3d at 714.

B. Withholding of Removal and CAT Relief

The IJ denied withholding of removal and CAT relief, reasoning that because

the Al Yatims could not meet the lower standard required for asylum, they also could

not meet the higher standard needed to obtain withholding of removal, and had not

presented any evidence they would face torture if returned to the Palestinian territory.

This determination is, for the same reasons outlined in the previous section, supported

by substantial evidence. The conclusion is also legally correct. See Samedov v.

Gonzales, 422 F.3d 704, 708-09 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining that if a petitioner is

found ineligible for asylum for failure to demonstrate a well-founded fear of

persecution, he is ineligible for withholding of removal, because it requires a clear

probability of future persecution). Additionally, although “[t]orture . . . is not

coterminous with persecution[,] . . . only in limited circumstances, such as when an

alien claims that torture would occur for a reason other than one of the statutory

grounds giving rise to refugee status . . . must an IJ examine a claim for relief under

[the CAT] separately from claims for asylum and for withholding removal[.]” Id. at

708. Because the reasons the Al Yatims claim they fear persecution are identical to

the reasons they claim they fear torture, the CAT claim fails alongside the Al Yatims’

asylum claim. See id. at 708-09 (concluding no independent consideration of a CAT

claim is required where the petitioner “[did] not predict any future acts against him

that would qualify as torture even if they failed to be persecution”).

Appellate Case: 06-3321 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448918
-10-

C. Motion to Reopen

Although the election of Hamas may cause increased difficulties for Christians

in the Palestinian territories, the Al Yatims have not identified any additional

difficulties they will face which would rise to the level of persecution. To support

changed country conditions, the Al Yatim’s submitted news articles reporting

parliamentary elections placing Hamas in control of the Palestinian territories. The

BIA found the articles did not demonstrate significantly changed country conditions.

After the Hamas election, acts of violence occurred, but for years before the election,

hostilities existed between the Palestinians and Israelis, and numerous incidents of

violence occurred, resulting in a general state of unrest. The BIA previously held

these previous conditions did not constitute persecution or torture of the Al Yatims

based on a protected ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). As

described earlier, the evidence does not compel a contrary ruling. The Al Yatims’

new evidence does not show country conditions have materially changed. Cf.

Quomsieh v. Mukasey, No. 07-2279, slip op. at 2 (8th Cir. April 18, 2008) (per

curiam) (unpublished). 

The Al Yatims also have not explained how the new circumstances would

impact them specifically, as opposed to creating a generalized increase in regional

hostilities. This omission supports the conclusion the BIA did not abuse its discretion

in denying the motion to reopen. See Mohamed, 396 F.3d at 1003. The record also

demonstrates Al Yatim’s Christian parents have remained in the region unharmed,

which further undercuts the Al Yatims’ claim. See Setiadi, 437 F.3d at 714 (finding

no error in the agency’s determination the petition lacked a well-founded fear of

persecution where there was no showing of nationwide persecution of Christians, and

the petitioner’s family remained unharmed in a contentious region). Based on this

record, the BIA did not abuse its considerable discretion in denying the motion to

reopen. 

Appellate Case: 06-3321 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448918
-11-

V. CONCLUSION

The record does not compel a conclusion the BIA erred in finding the Al

Yatims ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. The BIA did not

abuse its discretion in denying the Al Yatims’ motion to reopen. The consolidated

petitions for review are denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3321 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448918