Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02277/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02277-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Philip Hassan Moses
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2277

___________

Philip Hassan Moses, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition of Review from the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: March 17, 2006

Filed: April 26, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Philip Hassan Moses challenges a final order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) affirming a departure order. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §

1252, this court affirms.

Moses, a Nigerian citizen, stayed in the United States beyond his authorized

date as a "non-immigrant student." The Department of Homeland Security began

removal proceedings. Moses then requested asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture based on past persecution because

he and his family are Christians. 

Appellate Case: 05-2277 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2006 Entry ID: 2037406
-2-

In the early 1990s, while Moses was away in the National Youth Service Corps,

a group of Muslims broke into his parents' home, capturing his mother and younger

brother. He claims this was part of a "Muslim jihad" against Christians. The attackers

beat his brother while forcing him to recite a verse from the Koran. They dragged his

mother into the courtyard, beat her unconscious, cut off two fingers, broke her

forearm, and wounded her head. They then took his brother to be converted to Islam.

His mother filed a report with the Secretary of the Judicial Committee of Justice, but

the attackers were never apprehended. 

 Other family members – a cousin and two uncles – were killed in separate

incidents because they were Christian. During sporadic rioting, Moses's family would

briefly leave the neighborhood, returning when it was safer. Moses was not present

during these attacks and never physically harmed. 

In 1998, Moses came to the United States to attend Bible school. He went back

to Nigeria in 1999, but stayed only two months, saying that although he was not

harmed, he "knew it wasn't safe." He returned to the United States on a student visa;

however, he never went back to school.

This court reviews the BIA's factual determinations for substantial evidence,

and its decision is upheld unless any reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to

conclude otherwise. See Mamana v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir.2006).

Because the BIA affirmed without opinion, this court reviews the IJ's decision as the

agency's final determination. See Ibrahim v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 1074, 1078 (8th Cir.

2006). The Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to an alien who is

unwilling to return to his home country because of "(1) past persecution or (2) 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),

1158(b)(1). Persecution means "a threat to one's life or freedom on account of one of

[these] five protected grounds." Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 983 (8th Cir.

2005), quoting Fisher v. INS, 291 F.3d 491, 497 (8th Cir. 2002). 

Appellate Case: 05-2277 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2006 Entry ID: 2037406
-3-

On the record before this court, the IJ neither failed to take into account the

deaths and persecution of family members, nor erred in finding Moses did not suffer

past persecution. "Without question, acts of violence against family members on

account of religion or political opinion 'may demonstrate persecution if they show a

pattern of persecution tied to the petitioner.'" Jalloh v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 920, 923

(8th Cir. 2005) (petitioner lived far away when rebel soldiers attacked family), citing

Ahmadshah v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir. 2005). While noting Moses's

family "may have suffered personal physical harm," the IJ did not tie this pattern of

persecution to Moses, stating: "However, the respondent has been able to avoid such

harm because he was either not present or he was able to run away." Additionally, the

IJ found that he was not harmed when he returned to Nigeria in 1999, even attending

church while there. His family members also continued to attend church without

incident. On the facts presented, there is substantial evidence that Moses did not

suffer past persecution.

Next, Moses argues that the IJ applied the wrong legal standard in determining

it was reasonable to relocate to another part of Nigeria. Contrary to his assertions,

however, he bears the burden to prove the unreasonableness of relocation. See 8

C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i) ("In cases in which the applicant has not established past

persecution, the applicant shall bear the burden of establishing that it would not be

reasonable for him or her to relocate . . . ."). The C.F.R. lists several possible factors,

explaining they "may, or may not, be relevant, depending on all the circumstances of

the case, and are not necessarily determinative of whether it would be reasonable for

the applicant to relocate." Id. § 1208.13(b)(3).

On this record, Moses did not provide enough evidence to compel a reasonable

fact-finder to conclude it is unreasonable to relocate. The IJ explained that he and his

family could move to a predominantly Christian part of Nigeria "to avoid any

perceived threats of persecution." The IJ found "insufficient" his explanation that

relocation was impossible given his family's minority status and their involvment in

the Biafran War 26 years ago. Moses produced no other evidence that his family

Appellate Case: 05-2277 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2006 Entry ID: 2037406
-4-

would suffer harm if they relocated. Moreover, the record contains a State

Department report indicating the Nigerian government is helping displaced citizens.

Although Moses cites several news articles and reports documenting civil and ethnic

unrest, these alone do not compel a contrary conclusion. Thus, he failed to meet his

burden.

Finally, Moses claims a well-founded fear of future persecution. Because he

did not establish past persecution, he is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of

future persecution. See Reyes-Morales v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 937, 941 (8th Cir. 2006).

"In order to prove a well-founded fear of future persecution, an 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."" Berte v. Ashcroft,

396 F.3d 993, 996 (8th Cir. 2005), quoting Regalado-Garcia v. INS, 305 F.3d 784,

788 (8th Cir. 2002). An applicant must establish this well-founded fear with "credible,

direct, and specific evidence." Eta-Ndu, 411 F.3d at 984, quoting Shoaira v.

Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 837, 844 (8th Cir. 2004). 

The IJ stated that while "there are problems and conflicts between the Christians

and the Muslims" in Nigeria, Moses never suffered personal harm. In addition, Moses

and his family have not suffered personal harm since 1993. See Krasnopivtsev v.

Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 832, 839 (8th Cir. 2004) ("The reasonableness of a fear of

persecution is diminished when family members remain in the native country

unharmed, and the applicant himself had not been singled out for abuse."); see also

Regalado-Garcia, 305 F.3d at 788 (more than 10 years since petitioner suffered harm,

and no evidence of family persecution). During this time, his family continued to

attend church without incident. When home in 1999, Moses was never prevented

from attending church. Moreover, the IJ notes that his wife works as a secretary in the

Nigerian Ministry of Women Affairs, two of his sisters are clerks in the Ministry of

Education, and his oldest child attends school there. Finally, the IJ explained that

Moses's two-month voluntary return to Nigeria in 1999, where he suffered no harm,

Appellate Case: 05-2277 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/26/2006 Entry ID: 2037406
1

After the BIA's decision, the Citizenship and Immigration Service on

December 20, 2005, granted asylum to Moses's mother – who had been in the United

States for a year and a half – based on past persecution and her fear of future

persecution for being Christian. Moses twice moved to hold this court's decision in

abeyance until the BIA has the opportunity to consider reopening his case. This court

denied these motions on February 10 and April 3, 2006.

Moses argues that his mother's grant of asylum is a "critical, new development"

in his own case. This court's review, though, is limited to the "administrative record

on which the order of removal is based." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); see also Berte,

396 F.3d at 997. Thus, this court can review only the record as it was before the IJ as

late as February 4, 2004, when Moses's mother was still in Nigeria. However, the BIA

"may at any time reopen or reconsider on its own motion any case in which it has

rendered a decision." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (emphasis added). 

In view of the potential new fact that Moses's mother was recently granted

asylum, this court urges the BIA to consider reopening Moses's case. 

-5-

indicates there is no reasonable fear of persecution. Thus, there is substantial evidence

to support the IJ's decision. 

The BIA's determination that Moses is not eligible for asylum is supported by

substantial evidence. Because he fails to meet the lesser burden of proving eligibility

for asylum, he also fails to prove a right to withholding of deportation. See Fisher,

291 F.3d at 498. 

The judgment of the BIA is affirmed based on the record before this court.1

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2277 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/26/2006 Entry ID: 2037406