Interim Decision #2433 

MATTER OF PIERRE • - 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-19337984 

Decided by Board September 16,'1975 

Respondent, a native and citizen of Haiti, is an applicant for the withholding of deportation under section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. She 

testified that prior to her departure from Haiti her husband threatened her life and 

attempted to kill her. She alleges that, if returned to Haiti, she would be persecuted by 

her husband, which the Government of Haiti would do nothing to restrain because of her 

husband's high position (a deputy in the Haitian Government), and that she would be 

effectively foreclosed from receiving adequate legal or physical protection. Respondent's application is denied since she has not established that she would be persecuted 

on account of rage, religion, political opinion or membership in a particular social group; 

rather, the motivation behind her husband's alleged actions appears to be strictly 

personal. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2) U.S.C. 1251(aX2)1---Nonimmigrant visitor—

remained longer. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Richard S. Brody, Esquire George Indelicato 

53 State Street Appellate Trial Attorney 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 

This is an appeal from a decision of an immigration judge, dated April 

2, 1975 finding the respondent deportable as charged and denying her 

application for withholding of deportation under section 243(h) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act. The appeal will be dismissed. 

The respondent is a married female alien who is a native and citizen of 

Haiti. She was admitted to the United States as a temporary visitor for 

pleasure on November 18, 1971. She has remained beyond the period 

authorized. The respondent admitted the factual allegations of the order 

to show cause, but denied deportability. We are satisfied that on the 

basis of the admissions, deportability has been established by clear, 

convincing and unequivocal evidence. 

The respondent has applied for withholding of deportation pursuant 

to section 243(h) of the Act. She is the wife of a deputy in the Haitian 

Government. This position is apparently analogous to that of a senator 

461 
Interim Decision #2433 

in the United States. She testified that prior to her departure from 

Haiti, her husband threatened her life and attempted to kill her by 

burning down the house in which she lived. The respondent also testified that she hid at the homes of relatives in Haiti and then fled to the 

United States. 

A cousin cf the respondent, who appeared as a witness, testified that 

while in Haiti, she had heard the respondent's husband threaten the 

respondent with bodily harm. A letter from the Department of State 

confirms that the respondent's husband is in fact a deputy in the Haitian 

Government. 

Under section 243(h) of the Act, the Attorney General may temporarily withhold the deportation of any alien within the United States to any 

country in which the alien would be subject to persecution on account of 

his race, religion, political opinion or membership in a particular social 

group. See Matter of Dunar, 14 I. & N. Dee. 310 (BIA 1973). The 

respondent does not claim that she would be persecuted by virtue of her 

inclusion in any of those classes; nor does she claim that the government 

of Haiti per se would persecute her. Rather, she contends that because 

of the high political position held by her husband, she would effectively 

be foreclosed from receiving adequate legal or physical protection in 

Haiti, and that this in turn amounts to persecution which the government of Haiti would do nothing to restrain. 

We have iz the past recognized that there could be situations whore 

an alien would qualify for temporary withholding of deportation even 

though the r ersecution was at the hands of individuals not connected 

with any government. However, it would first have to be shown that the 

government concerned was either unwilling or unable to control the 

persecuting individual or group. Matter of Tan, 12 I. & N. Dec. 564 

(BIA 1967). See Rosa v. INS, 440 F.2d 100 (1 Cir. 1971). Cf. Matter of 

Maccaud, 14 I. & N. Dee. 429 (BIA 1973); Matter of Euseph, 10 I. & N. 

Dee. 453, 455 (BIA 1964). Although the respondent claims that the 

government of Haiti would not intervene to prevent or punish alleged 

unlawful acts performed by her husband, she has presented no evidence 

to support this claim. 

We are not aware of any case in which an alien has been granted the 

benefit of section 243(h) on the basis of the allegations made here. In 

Matter of Tan, supra, the alien alleged that if he were returned to his 

native country, he would be subject to persecution by mobs because of 

his ethnic background. In Matter of Maceaud, the alien claimed that he 

would be persecuted by individual prison officials because of his political 

activities. In Rosa v. INS, supra, the alien claimed that mobs would 

attack him because of his close association with a former, deposed 

government. 

In each of these cases, in which there are dicta approving the concept 

462 
Interim Decision #2433 

that non-governmental persecution could come within the ambit of section 243(h), the alien alleged that persecution would result because of 

membership in a class enumerated in section 243(h). Here, the claim is 

significantly different. The respondent does not allege that her husband 

seeks to persecute her on account of her race, religion, or political 

beliefs. The motivation behind his alleged actions appears to be strictly 

personal. Thus, even if the respondent had shown that the government 

of Haiti was unable or unwilling to restrain her husband, she could not 

qualify for temporary withholding of deportation. Not every unlawful 

act of individual harrassment will amount to persecution within the 

meaning of section 243(h). 

Counsel for the respondent also argues that the receipt into evidence 

of a statement, (Exhibit 5), made by the respondent prior to the deportation hearing was erroneous and prejudiced his client. There is no 

indication on the transcript of this statement that it was through use of 

an interpreter. Counsel indicates that the respondent does not speak 

English and he notes that all other statements made by the respondent 

were made through a French-speaking interpreter. We do not believe 

that the respondent has been prejudiced by the presence of this statement, since we have concluded that even on the basis of the facts most 

favorable to the respondent she would not qualify for the relief sought. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

Further order: Pursuant to the immigration judge's order, the respondent is permitted to depart from the United States voluntarily 

within 30 days from the date of this order or any extension beyond that 

time as may be granted by the district director; and in the event of 

failure so to depart, the respondent shall be deported as provided in the 

immigration judge's order. 

463