Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02925/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02925-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Leonard Sholla
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2925

___________

Leonard Sholla, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an Order of the

v. * Board of Immigration Appeals.

* 

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: March 15, 2007

 Filed: July 5, 2007 

___________

Before MELLOY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Leonard Sholla, a native and citizen of Albania, entered the United States with

a valid tourist visa. Shortly after the visa expired, Sholla submitted an application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture in

which he alleged that he was the victim of political persecution in his native country.

An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied these applications, and the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“the Board”) adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. Sholla petitions this

court for review of the denial of his applications for relief, and we grant the petition.

Appellate Case: 06-2925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2007 Entry ID: 3326203
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

Sholla arrived in the United States from Albania on December 2, 2000, with a

valid tourist visa. The visa expired on June 1, 2001. On June 20, 2001, Sholla applied

for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

On October 31, 2002, immigration authorities served him with a notice to appear

charging that he was a removable alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). Sholla

appeared before the immigration court in Chicago and admitted removability, and an

IJ set a date to hear the merits of his applications for relief. After a venue transfer to

St. Louis, Sholla had his merits hearing via video conference before an IJ in Oakdale,

Louisiana, on September 29, 2004.

The facts presented below derive from the testimony of Sholla and his brother

Milto, the only witnesses at the hearing. Their testimony was uncontradicted by the

government and found credible by the IJ, and we therefore present it as such.

Sholla was born in Kuçovë, Albania, in 1951. He was the oldest of six brothers:

himself, Milto, Nikollaq, Jovan, Koco, and Vasillaq. During his childhood and much

of his adult life, Albania was under Communist rule. Sholla listened to Voice of

America and Radio Vatican and soon became an ardent supporter of democratic

reforms and a harsh critic of the Communist regime. He spoke to friends, family, and

“whoever would listen” about his beliefs. Someone in the Albanian government

learned of his anti-Communist advocacy. In 1980, Communist authorities arrested

Sholla and placed him, his wife Zoica, and his then-two-year-old daughter Valbona

in a hard-labor internment camp. The three were released in 1981.

Three of Leonard’s brothers—Milto, Nikollaq, and Jovan—also became active

in the anti-Communist political movement, and Jovan’s political activities led to his

arrest and internment from 1988 to 1990. The four brothers joined the Democratic

Party in Kuçovë upon its official formation in 1991. Sholla served as the chairman

Appellate Case: 06-2925 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2007 Entry ID: 3326203
-3-

of the party commission in his electoral zone. Milto and Nikollaq both served terms

as secretary of the party commission, and Jovan took an active role in party publicity.

The Democrats prevailed in the 1992 elections at the national level, although the

Socialist Party won in Kuçovë. The 1996 elections brought the same result.

The Albanian economy collapsed in early 1997, citizens rioted in the streets,

and the prime minister (a Democrat) resigned. The parties formed a coalition

government in March of that year and set an early election date for the new

government in late June. Sholla and his brothers campaigned for the Democrats and

appeared at rallies and meetings for the party in May and June. The police at that time

were controlled by the Socialists, and Sholla faced numerous threats from police

officers during the campaign. On three occasions, those threats were accompanied by

violence. In May 1997, police officers approached Sholla after a Democratic

promotional event in the town of Gegë and stated that they needed to “clarify some

things” with Sholla. They pushed him into a van, told him that he must withdraw

from the party or they would make him “disappear,” and beat him with rubber batons

until he lost consciousness. The police were gone when he awoke, and two strangers

found him and returned him to his home. It took three days for Sholla to recover from

the beating, which bruised his body and left a permanent scar on his upper lip. 

Less than one month later, Sholla was returning from a party meeting when he

was stopped by two officers, one of whom he recognized and identified by name for

the IJ. They led him to their car, drove him to another location, and told him to cease

his campaigning efforts for the Democrats. Sholla refused. The officers beat him

while making threats against his life and the lives of his family members. Sholla

suffered bruises on his arm and head, and he carries a scar on the left side of his head

from the beating. He believed that the officers did not kill him because, due to his

prominent position in local Democratic politics, the murder would have been “big

news.” He spent two days recovering from his injuries and then continued his

campaign efforts undeterred. Three weeks later and four days before the election, as

Appellate Case: 06-2925 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/05/2007 Entry ID: 3326203
-4-

a peaceful demonstration of Democrats was winding down in Kuçovë, Sholla was

again accosted by police officers who threatened his life and beat him “in a barbarous

way.” Nicollaq was beaten by two different officers on the same day.

The Socialists won the 1997 election, and Sholla and his brothers continued

their work for the Democratic Party. In January 1998, a bomb exploded in Milto’s

house, wounding Milto’s youngest son. He reported it to police, but investigators

took no action. Milto and his family slipped away to a different part of the country

and traveled to the United States in September of that year. He was granted asylum.

Around the same time that Milto arrived in the United States, a bomb destroyed

Jovan’s store. Jovan reported it to the authorities, and the chief of police told him that

“next time his head would disappear.” Jovan accused the local police of setting the

bomb. As a result of his allegations, police arrested and interrogated him but did not

file formal charges. Jovan and his family went into hiding and ultimately sought

refuge in the United States, where Jovan was granted asylum.

Sholla remained in Albania during the two years following the bombings. On

the night of September 27, 2000—mere days before a local election—masked men

came to his door, armed with AK-47 assault rifles. They stood outside and sprayed

gunfire into Sholla’s home. Sholla escaped the attack unharmed, but a bullet wounded

the left leg of his youngest son, Arnato, who was then fifteen years old. Sholla

attached a photo of the wound, as well as photos of the bullet holes in his door, to his

application for asylum. Sholla reported the attack to the authorities, but they took no

action. He believes the Socialist police were behind the attack because he never

received any threats from anyone else.

Sholla and his family fled to stay with his in-laws in Sarandë, Albania. Sholla

obtained a tourist visa from the U.S. Embassy and entered the United States on

December 2, 2000. His wife paid $15,000 for false documentation and entered the

Appellate Case: 06-2925 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/05/2007 Entry ID: 3326203
1

Sholla pointed out this fact in a pre-hearing brief to the IJ, stating that his

brother “was recently granted political asylum by this court.” In the margin of the

brief, which appears in the record before us, the IJ included a handwritten comment:

“NOT BY THIS COURT - [the IJ’s signature].” We respect the autonomy of

individual adjudicators in our legal system and recognize that the IJ was not bound by

the prior decision of a colleague to grant asylum to Sholla’s brother. Nevertheless, we

note that this statement is disrespectful to both Sholla and the judgment of a fellow IJ,

suggests prejudice, and borders upon the kind of inappropriate commentary that has

drawn harsh criticism from our sister circuits. See, e.g., Benslimane v. Gonzales, 430

F.3d 828, 829-30 (7th Cir. 2005) (collecting cases). Although the IJ’s comment

ultimately has no bearing upon our decision in the present case, we have found similar

comments to be material to the outcome of other appeals. See, e.g., Tun v. Gonzales,

485 F.3d 1014, 1027 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding that an alien’s due process rights were

violated as a result of numerous instances of unfairness in his asylum proceedings,

including the fact that “the IJ’s assessment . . . contained commentary . . . that

suggests the IJ may not have acted as a neutral arbiter”).

-5-

country illegally two years later to rejoin her husband. Their three children remain

with his wife’s family in Albania. Nikollaq also left Albania and came to the United

States at the same time as Sholla, and he was granted asylum one month prior to

Sholla’s hearing by a different IJ in the same immigration court as the IJ who decided

Sholla’s case.1

Milto testified at Sholla’s hearing, as well. He corroborated Sholla’s testimony

concerning the family’s extensive political involvement, the beatings by police, and

the brothers’ fear for their lives in Albania. He also authenticated Sholla’s

photographs of a wounded Arnato and the aftermath of the assault-rifle attack on

Sholla’s home.

Sholla’s application for asylum included: (1) a letter from the head of the

Kuçovë branch of the Democratic Party describing Sholla’s party activism and

corroborating the attacks against him; (2) a document from the Ex-Politically

Persecuted Association in Albania stating that Sholla was a member of the group and

Appellate Case: 06-2925 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/05/2007 Entry ID: 3326203
-6-

had been imprisoned in 1980 for political activities; and (3) other documentation

verifying his identity and the identities of his family members.

The IJ rendered an oral decision at the close of the hearing. The decision

summarized Sholla’s testimony, noting the numerous incidents of violence against

him and his brothers and the apparent political motives behind many of the incidents.

The IJ found Sholla’s testimony to be credible, although it was “somewhat troubl[ing]

that the respondent knew of the [three beatings in 1997] and described them in detail

but his corroborative witness, his brother, . . . seemed to believe that one of the events

happened in 1997 while the other two occurred in 1998.” This perceived discrepancy

was illusory. In reality, Milto testified that Sholla was beaten once in May 1997 and

twice in June 1997, and that Sholla suffered an attack on his home in 2000, after Milto

had fled to the United States. Sholla’s testimony was identical as to the timing of the

beatings and the attack on his home.

The IJ proceeded to deny Sholla’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal,

and relief under the Convention Against Torture. As to asylum and withholding of

removal, the IJ did not dispute the events described in Sholla’s testimony, but

nevertheless found “that the things that happened to [Sholla] in 1997 are not sufficient

to meet the burden of proof that the respondent has a well-founded fear of future

persecution” because the record included reports asserting that conditions in Albania

have improved since that time. As to the assault-rifle attack, the IJ gave it little weight

and did not credit Sholla’s circumstantial evidence of a political motive, concluding

that “there’s just not enough evidence to show” that it was carried out or directed by

police officers, or that they acquiesced in it. In sum, the IJ’s opinion largely ignores

the question of whether the internment, beatings, and assault-rifle attack constituted

past persecution, even though the IJ found Sholla credible and noted that the country

reports supported Sholla’s testimony regarding the past incidents of violence against

him. The IJ’s opinion contains only one clause addressing the issue of past

persecution: “while the respondent may have been harassed or even subject to police

Appellate Case: 06-2925 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/05/2007 Entry ID: 3326203
-7-

brutality on some isolated occasions seven years ago, the Court cannot find that rises

to persecution within the meaning of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act.” 

The IJ also denied Sholla’s claim for relief under the Convention Against

Torture, finding that “there is nothing to show that the experiences that the respondent

suffered were so severe that they amount to torture within the meaning of the

regulations.”

Sholla appealed to the Board, and it adopted and affirmed the decision of the

IJ without comment.

II. DISCUSSION

In an asylum case, “[w]e review the Board’s factual findings for substantial

evidence and its legal determinations de novo.” Ntangsi v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 1007,

1011 (8th Cir. 2007). When the Board affirms the decision of the IJ without a

separate opinion, we review the decision of the IJ. Bushira v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 626,

630 (8th Cir. 2006). Under the substantial evidence standard, we must affirm unless

the evidence is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find” that the

petitioner qualifies for asylum. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).

To meet the eligibility requirements for asylum relief, an applicant must show

that he is “unable or unwilling to return to . . . [the designated country for removal]

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). Persecution is “an extreme concept” that excludes “[l]owlevel intimidation and harassment.” Shoaira v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 837, 844 (8th Cir.

2004) (quotation omitted). It is also a “fluid concept,” Bellido v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d

840, 843 (8th Cir. 2004), one this court has defined to include the threat of death, the

threat or infliction of torture, and the threat or infliction of injury to one’s person or

Appellate Case: 06-2925 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/05/2007 Entry ID: 3326203
-8-

one’s liberty on account of a protected ground. Regalado-Garcia v. INS, 305 F.3d

784, 787 (8th Cir. 2002). If an alien establishes that he was the victim of past

persecution, the IJ must presume that his fears of future persecution on the same basis

are well-founded. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). The burden of proof then shifts to the

government. Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii). To meet this burden, the government must show,

by a preponderance of the evidence, that there has been a “fundamental change in

circumstances” that renders the alien’s fears of persecution unfounded, or that the

alien could effectively and reasonably avoid persecution by relocating to another part

of the country of removal. Id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A), (B).

At the outset, we note that the IJ’s opinion did not proceed according to

analytical framework of 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13. Sholla clearly and unquestionably

alleged past persecution by state officers on account of his political beliefs. This

allegation raises the threshold question of whether he met his burden of proof to

establish past persecution, which would entitle him to the presumption of a wellfounded fear of future persecution in his native country. The IJ’s opinion either

ignores this initial step or conflates it with steps that would become appropriate only

after deciding this threshold issue. When an alien alleges past persecution, the IJ

commits legal error if she fails to make a finding on whether the alien did in fact

establish past persecution. See Bushira, 442 F.3d at 631-33. In such cases, we will

generally remand the case to the Board to make such a determination and apply the

correct legal standard. Id. at 633.

The opinion proceeds as if Sholla had never sought the benefit of the

presumption based on past persecution: the IJ describes the incidents in Sholla’s

testimony in light of evidence of improved conditions in Albania and concludes that

Sholla failed to “meet the burden of proof to show that [he] has a well-founded fear

of persecution.” Without more, this would warrant remand under the reasoning of

Bushira. Id. at 631-33. Several pages later, however, the opinion does include an

isolated, conclusory statement that the incidents described by Sholla “do not rise[] to

Appellate Case: 06-2925 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/05/2007 Entry ID: 3326203
2

The IJ stated that the country reports gave “no indication that the Socialist

Party, either through its own organization or through the government, is engaging in

any pattern of repression or violent behavior against opponents.” While we question

that reading of the record, we also note that the absence of a pattern and practice of

persecution by government officials does not determine the question of whether

Sholla suffered past persecution. See Corado v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir.

2004) (per curiam) (“We consistently have defined persecution . . . without any

suggestion of a ‘pattern and practice’ requirement.”). A pattern and practice of

persecution in a given country becomes relevant only if an alien has not shown past

persecution or any evidence of a “reasonable possibility that he or she would be

singled out individually for persecution.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii).

-9-

persecution.” While we question whether this statement amounts to a clear, cogent

finding on the issue of past persecution given its context, it is nevertheless possible

to characterize it as a finding that Sholla failed to establish past persecution because

the IJ believed the incidents in his past were not severe enough to constitute

persecution.2

Fortunately, we need not engage in a delicate interpretation of the IJ’s opinion;

the question of whether the IJ’s statement amounted to a finding on the issue of past

persecution is ultimately irrelevant to our disposition of this case on appeal. Even if

the IJ did make such a finding, substantial evidence would not support it. For the

reasons discussed below, we believe the record compels any reasonable factfinder to

conclude that Sholla suffered past persecution on a protected ground.

Sholla, his wife, and his toddler daughter spent two years in a hard-labor camp

because Sholla preached the tenets of democratic government in a Communist state.

One of his brothers served a three-year internment for the same reason. After the Cold

War ended, Sholla and his brothers took an active role in promoting the newly-formed

Democratic Party in Albania. In the three years before Sholla fled Albania, the

Socialist-backed police threatened Sholla and his family members with death, singled

out and brutally beat Sholla on several occasions with rubber batons, beat at least one

Appellate Case: 06-2925 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/05/2007 Entry ID: 3326203
-10-

of his brothers, and ordered Sholla to cease his political activities. One brother’s

home was bombed, wounding Sholla’s nephew. Another brother’s store was bombed,

and a police officer told his brother that “next time his head would disappear.”

Masked men with assault rifles fired bullets into Sholla’s home, wounding his

youngest son. Sholla provided corroborating evidence of these events, including his

brother Milto’s consistent testimony, and the IJ specifically found Sholla credible and

gave no valid reasons for questioning the veracity of his claims. 

In short, Sholla’s persecutors made numerous and credible threats to kill Sholla

and his family because of their political activities, punctuated by savage beatings,

imprisonment, bombings, and high-caliber gunfire directed at his home. This

country’s asylum statute would be quite hollow indeed if our definition of persecution

required Sholla to wait for his persecutors to finally carry out their death threats before

Sholla could seek refuge here. Our accepted definition of persecution is far less

demanding, and the numerous incidents that Sholla describes fall squarely within it.

Therefore, we find the evidence sufficient to compel a finding of past persecution.

Sholla was therefore entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future

persecution, which shifts the burden to the government to prove either: (1) that there

has been a “fundamental change in circumstances” that negate his otherwise wellfounded fears of persecution, or (2) that it would be reasonable for Sholla to live in

a different part of Albania and that he could avoid persecution by doing so. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i). The IJ did discuss the current country conditions in Albania and

raised the possibility of relocation, but never with the burden of proof upon the

government. On the contrary, the IJ repeatedly emphasized that the burden of proof

was upon Sholla, even when discussing changed country conditions. The IJ does not

so much as mention the possibility of shifting the burden of proof to the government.

The opinion does state that “circumstances and conditions in Albania have

changed to such an extent that . . . respondent and his family could return at this time.”

Arguably, this statement could reflect an alternative holding that the government had

Appellate Case: 06-2925 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/05/2007 Entry ID: 3326203
-11-

shown changed country conditions by a preponderance of the evidence. Given the

context of the opinion as a whole, however—including its constant reference to

Sholla’s burden and its general analytical infirmity—we cannot assume that this lone,

ambiguous statement constitutes a clear alternative holding upon which we may affirm

the denial of Sholla’s asylum claim. In short, the IJ has not yet considered the

question of whether the government met its burden of proving that Sholla’s

presumptively well-founded fear of future persecution is no longer sound due to a

“fundamental change in circumstances” in Albania. 

We hold that the evidence would compel any reasonable factfinder to conclude

that Sholla had suffered past persecution. We remand this case to the Board for

reconsideration of Sholla’s claim, with the burden upon the government to prove that

Sholla’s fear of future persecution is no longer well-founded because of recent,

fundamental changes in Albania, or because Sholla could safely and reasonably

relocate to a different region of Albania.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition for review.

 

Appellate Case: 06-2925 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/05/2007 Entry ID: 3326203