## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 12

- 2320 V ICTO R S I RBUAN D I UL I A P R ODAN, P etitio ners , v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

. No s. A 088-390- 329 &A 088-390- 330.

A RG UE D J AN UA RY 29, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AY 20, 2013

Befo re B AUER, W I L L I A MS, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. M ol dovan ci ti zens Vict orS i rbu a n d h i s wi fe I u l i a P r o d a n a p p l i e d f o ra s y l u m i n t he U ni ted S tat es , as wel las f orwithhol ding ofr em ova l and prote cti on under the Conventi on A gainst Tor ture
. S i rbu fea r s per se cut i o n b y the M o l do va n g o ve r nm en t b a s e d o n h i s a c t i v e a n d v o c a lo p po s i t i o n t o th e C o mm u n i st Party. ( A l though the ev i dence i nd i cate s m i str eat
-2 N o. 12

- 2320

m en t o f bo th M r. Sirb u a n d M s . P ro d an for th eir an tiCom m unis t pol i ti calact i vi ti es, M r. S i rbu’ s a pp l i cati on i s the l ead o n e; M s. Pro dan’s appli cati on i s der i vati ve o fhi s. ) An i m m i g r at i o n j udg e den i ed r el i ef, f in di ng that Si rbu’ s e vi dence di d not “c om pel a fi nd i ng” o f p ast p ersecu tion th at cou ld su p p ort asylum

. Th e B oard ofI m m i gr ati on Ap peal s a ffirm ed the denia l

. S i rbu a n d P r o d a n h a v e p e t i t i o n e d f o rr e v i e w. B e c a u s e th e i mm i g r at i o n j udg e a nd the n the Bo ar d a ppl i ed th e wro ng l e g a l s t a n d a r d i n d e c i d i n g wh e th e r S i rb u ha d s h o wn pa s tp e r s e c u t i o n f o rh i s p o l i t i c a la c t i v i t i e s , we g r a nt the pet i ti on f orrev iew a nd r em and the ca se f orfurther proce edi ngs.

I. Fac t ual an d Pr oc e dural Backg r oun d S i rbu an d Pr o dan e nt er ed th e Uni te d S ta te s as no ni m m i gr ant t ouri sts i n 200 9 and o ver sta yed the i r vi sas . Th e y th e n fi l e d a t i me l y a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a s y l u m, wi th

h old i ng o fr em ova l, and re l i efunder the Conventi on A gainst Tor ture
. The g o ve r nm en t respo nde d b y c ha r g i ng Sirb u a n d P ro d an as rem ov ab le for ov er st ay in g t h eir vi sas . Se e 8 U
. S. C. § 1227 ( a) ( 1) ( B). The c ou p le adm i tte d rem o vabi l i tyb efo r e ani m m i g r at i o n j udg e i n F eb r ua ry 20 10 , a nd S i rbu r en ewe d t hei ra ppl i ca ti o n fo ra sy l um an d rel ated rel ief

. Sirb u ’s p er se c u tio n cla im is ba se d on p olit ica lly m ot ivate d m i str eatm ent that o ccurr ed i n M ol dova be tw een 2000 and 200 9. In 200 1, the M old ova n Com m unis t Party won the presi dency and m or e than two-t h i rds o f the s eat s in p ar liam ent. M ol dovan se curi ty f or ces bega nN o. 12

- 2320 3

Sin ce the im m i g r atio n ju d g e m ad e no ad v erse cre d ib ility 1 finding, our acc oun t o f the f act s speci ficto Sirbu i s based l ar ge l y onhi s wri t t enan d or al t es t i m ony. to ha rass, deta in, an d be a t m em bers of opp ositi on p arti es. S ee U
. S. Departm ent o fS tat e, 20 08 Country Rep or ts on H um an Right s Prac tices: M oldov a (Feb. 25, 2009). Si rbu was an acti ve opponent o fthe Com m unis t Par ty an d was a v i ctim ofthi s po l i ti ca lha r as smenta nd vi o l e n c e o n se ve ra l oc c as ion s, th re e o f th em in 2 00 3. In J an ua r y 2 003, S i rbu par ti ci pat ed i n a l ar g e pr o te stur g i ng th a tMo l do va j o i n NAT O a n d th e E u r o p e a n Un i o n . He was a r r es te d a nd de ta i ne d f o rfi ve ho ur s. The ne xt tw o encounter s were vi ol ent. In Feb ruar y 2 003, S i rbu p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a n o th e ra n t i

- C o mmun i s tp r o t e s t
. T wo pol i cem en hi t hi m o n the l egs so shar plythathe fellto th e groun d

. H e w as th en de tained f or abou t 40 hou rs w i thout f oo d orwa te r. A nd i n N ove m ber20 03, pol i ce caught Si rbu par ti ci pati ng i n an ant i

- Com m unis t Par ty m ee ting, s truckhi m i n th e ba ck, kno ck ed hi m t o the gr ou n d , an d th en d et ain ed an d int er ro ga te d h im ove rni ght. 1 I n the f ol l owing yea rs , S i rbu e xperi enced further po l i ti ca lha r as smenta nd m istr ea tment, i nc l udi ngthe l oss o fhi s j ob, but w as not deter re d fr om pol i ti calact i vity . For o u r p u rp os es , w e fo c u s o n th e m os t s er iou s in c ident, wh i ch fi nal l y l ed Si rbu a nd P ro dan to l eave M ol dova a nd l ate r to see k a syl um i n the U ni ted S tat es. M ol dova hel d parl i am entar y e l ecti ons o n A pri l5, 20 09. Both Sirbu an d Pr o danr ana s ca ndi dat es f o rpa r l i ament4 N o. 12

- 2320

See Co m m unist s Lo se i n M oldov a V ote, N Y Tim es (J uly 30, 2 20 0 9 ), ht tp ://w w w . nytim es . com / 2009/ 07/ 31/ w orld/ europe/ 31m oldov a. htm l? sc p=16& sq=&st =nyt. Four op posit ion parti es f orm ed a n ew m aj ority coali ti on that conti nues t o gov ern M o ld o v a . Se e C IA W o rl d F a ctb o o k , a v a il ab le at h tt p s:// ww w. c i a. gov/ l i bra ry / publ i c at i ons/the-w or ld- f ac t book/ g eo s/m d .h tm l (la st v isi te d M a y 16 , 20 1 3 ). i n o p p o s i t i o n t o C o mmu ni s t Pa r t y c a n d i d a t e s . T h e C o mm u n ist Par ty cl ai m ed vi cto ry, but on Ap ri l7, S i rbu an d Prod an j oined a l arge p rotest in th e nat ion’s ca pi ta la cc us i ngthe Co m m uni stPa r ty o fv o te rfr au d. The prot est or s be gan t o ri ot and the pol i ce a rr est ed 300 peopl e. S ee Pro tes ts i n M ol dova E xplode, W i th H el p of T w itter, NY T i me s ( A p r . 7, 2 0 0 9 ) , h t t p : //w w w . ny t i me s . c o m/ 2 0 0 9 / 0 4 / 0 8 / wo r l d/ e u r o p e / 0 8 mo l d o v a . ht ml ? pa g e wa nt e d= al l

. Both S i rbu a n d P ro dan w er e a rr est ed and tak en to a p olic e s ta tio n . W h ile inp olic e c u st od y Sirb u w as h it fre quentl y o n the head unti lhe l ostco n sc i ousness . Se ver alo therdetainees die d i n custod y afterthe prot est and arr est s. The pol i ce t ra nsfer re d Sir b u a nd Pro dan to a pol i ce sta ti on i n thei r hom eto w n, and S i rbu was tr eat ed at a m edi calcl i ni c f ora concussi on . T h ey l eft for the Unite d Sta tes l ate r i n A pri l20 09. Aft e r th e i r d e p a r t u r e fr o m Mo l d o v a , S i rb u s a i d , t he pol i ce went to hi s par ents’ hom e a nd to ld t h em he was on a “bl ack l i st. ” At t h e re m ova lhear i ng S i rbu t est i fi ed th athe s ti l lfea r ed r etur ni ngt o M o l do va b ec au se many C om m unis ts sti l lhel d posi ti ons ofpow erev en tho ugh opposi ti on par ti es had w on a nar ro w vict or y in new el ecti ons i n J uly20 09 prom pted by the A pri lpro tes ts. 2N o. 12

- 2320 5 The i m m i gr ati on j ud ge denie d Si rbu’ s a pp l i c at ion fo r a sylum

. Th e j ud ge ex p laine d : “A fter careful consid erat ion of th e re c or d in it s e n tir et y, an d co n sid er in g a ll the inci dents i n the agg re gat e, [ Sirb u ’s] f acts do not com pel a fin d in g th at h e su ffer ed p as t pe rs ec u tio n .” A p p . 9 ( em phasi s a dd ed). A ccor ding to the im m i gr ati on j ud ge, Si rbu ’s dete nti ons w er e br i ef, he r epor ted a physi cal i nj ur y r es ul tingf rom onl y o ne o fthe m ( when he w as beat en unconsci ou s in A pri l20 09) , and after ea c h inci dent he was abl e t o pu rs ue hi s a nti

- Com m unis t p oli ti calact i vi ti es. N ordi d Si rbu s how a w el l

- f ounded fearo ffuture perse cuti on, the j ud ge concl ud ed, bec ause he di d no t co r r o bo r at e hi s as se r ti o n abou t be i ngo n a police b l ack l i st, the J uly20 09 el ecti ons had unseated the Com m unis t Par ty presi dent , a nd o pp osi ti on par ti es had fo rm ed a s tr ong coa l i ti on. Because Si rbu was in elig ibl e foras yl um , the j ud ge concl ud ed, he a l so f ai l ed t o m eetthe hi gherst andards f orwithhol ding of r emov alo rCo nv en ti o n Aga i ns t To r tu r e pr o te ct i o n. Th e Board ag re ed w i th the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge that Si rbu had “no t m et hi s bur den ofpro of t o est abl i sh that he suffered pa st p ersecu tion” an d dism issed Si rbu ’s appe al

. In r eachi ngthi s co nc l us i o n, the Bo ar d c i te d o ur dec i si o n in Sta nojk o va v. Ho lder, 64 5 F. 3d 943, 94 8 (7th Ci r . 2 01 1) , f o rthe pr o po si ti o n tha t per se cut i o n involves “th e u s e of signifi cant physi calf or ce a gainst a perso n’s bo dy, o r the infl i ction ofco m parabl e physi cal ha rm w itho utdi r ec t appl i ca ti o n o ff o r ce . . . o rno nphysi calhar m o fequ algrav i ty. ” Th e B oar d acknowle dged th atS i rbu ha d b ee n b ea te n butno te d he ha d s o ug ht m edi caltr eat m ent o nl y o nce. In an i m port ant pass age ,6 N o. 12

- 2320 th e Bo ar d a ckno wl edg ed that ana ppl i ca ntf o ra sy l um need not prove “s er i ous inj uri es, ” ci ti ng A s a n i v . INS , 154 F. 3d 719, 72 2- 24 ( 7t h Ci r. 19 98) , but f ound that S i rbu’ s ab us e di d no t r i se t o the l ev el su ff ered i n A sani. The Board f ou n d , i nstea d, that the abuse o fS i rbu was m o r e co m par abl e to the abus e i n D anda n v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 5 6 7, 5 73-74 (7th Cir. 2003), w hich the B oard des cr ibe d as ha ving uphe l d a fi ndi ng o f no pas t p er se cuti on wh er e the appli c an t h ad bee n detai ned fo r thre e day s wi th o u tf o o d o rwa t e ra n d h a d b e e n b e a t en . T he B oard d id not ad d ress th e issue of fear of fu t ure perse cuti on, i ncl ud i ng w h ether, i fpast perse cuti on had been s how n, the go ver nm ent had s h ow n pol i ti cal changes i n M ol dova suffi ci ent to re but the i nfe re nce o fr ea so nabl e fea ro ffutur e per se cut i o n.

II. Dis cu s s i on In h is pet i ti on f orj ud i ci alr evi ew , S i rbu a rgues that the Boa rd er re d i n con c luding that he f ai l ed to es tabl i sh thathe s uffer ed past perse c u tion. H e be l i eve s that hi s t est i m ony and the docum entar y e vi dence show th athe was pe r se cut ed f o rb eingpo li ti ca l l y a ct i ve a nd f orexpre ssing hi s a nti

- Com m unis t o pini ons and that he re aso nabl y fear s perse cuti on i f he w er e returned to M ol dova. W here the B oar d has ag re ed w i th the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge’ s deci si on a n d supplem ented that o pini on with i ts own o bser vati ons, a s it did her e, we re vi ew bo th d eci si ons. S ee Sa rha n v . Ho lder, 65 8 F
. 3d 649, 65 3 ( 7thN o. 12

- 2320 7 Ci r . 2011)

. W e ha ve r ev i ewe d b o thde ci si o ns a nd Si rbu’ s e vi dence. T h e i m m i gr ati on j ud ge m ade a cl earl ega ler ro r by co nc l udi ngtha t the “f ac ts do no t co m pela fi ndi ng th athe su ffer ed pas t per se cut i o n. ” As the g o ve r nm en t ackno w l edged i n the or alar gum ent, wh ether t h e fa cts com pel a find ing o f p a st p ersecu tion is th e stan d ard for j u d icia l rev iew , no t fo r th e im m igr at ion j u d ge in th e fi r sti nstan ce. W e ex pec t th e i m m i g r at i o n j udg e an d th e Bo ar d to e xe r ci se the i ri nde pen den t j udg m en t an d ex p er tis e in d ec id in g w h et h er th e ab u se of an ap p lica ntf o ra sy l um r o se t o the l ev elo fpe r se cut i o n. The Board ap p ea rs to have r epeate d the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge’ s l ega ler ro r. T h ou gh the Boar d did not say expli ci tl y th at t h e f acts would not com pel a fi nd i ng o f past per secuti on, the Board di stin gu i shed on f actual gr oun d s a cas e in w hi ch w e had r eve rs ed a fi nd i ng o f no pastper secu tio n and hel d that the f acts were i nd eed so po wer ful as t o “ co m pel ” a fi ndi ngo fpa stpe r se cuti on. A pp . 24, ci ti ng Asan i, 15 4 F
. 3d at7 22

- 24
. The B oa rd th en fou n d gu id an c e fro m ou r d e c isio n in D anda n i n w hi ch w e hel d that the abuse o fthe petiti oner i n p olice cust ody was notso se ver e a s t o “co m pel ” a fi nd i ng o fpast perse cuti on. A p p . 24, ci ti ng D anda n , 33 9 F. 3d at 573- 74. The Boar d al so did notacknow l edge the i m m igr at i on j ud ge’ s l ega ler ro r. The co m bi nati on o f the i m m i g r at i o n j udg e’ s appl i ca ti o n o fthe wro ng st an dar d, the Bo ar d’ s f ai l ur e to no te the err o r, a nd the B oa rd’ s ci tat i ons to A sani a nd D anda n per su ade s us tha tthe Bo a r d a pp l i e d the wr o ngl e g a ls t a nd a r d.8 N o. 12

- 2320 The pr o peri ss ue f o rthe i m m igrati o n j udg e an d the Board i s whether the a pp l i cant ha s ac t ual l y show n p ast perse cuti on, not w hetherthe evi dence co m pels a fi ndi ng o fpa stpe r se cut i o n. The di ffer en ce m ay se em su bt l e, b ut i ti s a c t u a l l y v i t a li n a d mi n i s t e r i n gth e l a w o fa s y l u m. W hether th e fa cts co m pel a parti cul arfi nd i ng i s a m att er f orappel l ate co urts to deter m i ne i n ourdefer enti al r e v i e w o f the Bo a r d’ s de c i s i o ns . S ee IN S v
. Eli as - Zacar i as , 50 2 U .S. 47 8, 48 1 (1 99 2); B ueso -A vil a v. Ho lder, 66 3 F
. 3d 93 4, 93 7 (7th C ir. 2 01 1); M a tter of E -R -M -F- & A -S-M -, 25 I. & N
. Dec. 58 0, 58 7 n. 8 ( BIA 2011)

. Our st andard of re vi ew f orf actualquesti ons i s s ubstanti alev i dence: “the age n c y’s deter m i nati on wil lst and i fi t i s s up port ed by re aso nabl e, su b stanti al, and prob ati ve evi dence on the re cor d c onsi dered as a w h ol e. ” V a ho ra v . Ho lder, 626 F. 3d 907, 912 ( 7th Cir

. 2010); see Eli as - Zacar i as , 50 2 U
. S. at48 1. W e defert o the i m m i g r at i o n j udg es a nd the Bo ard be ca us e we e xpe ctthe m t o e xe r ci se the ir e xpe r ti se a nd j ud gm ent in the diffi cul t ca ses . In c as es l i ke thi s o ne, though, wh er e the Boar d and the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge m isr ea d ou r d ec isio n s d en yin g re vie w be c au s e t h e e vidence di d not co m pe la fi nd i ng o fper secuti on a s hol ding that the e vi dence ei therdid n ot o r coul d not supp or t a fi nd i ng o fper secuti on, the properr ol es of a g e nc y a nd r e v i e wi ngc o ur th a v e b e e n r e v e r s e d. T hat has happ ened too often. A s w e expla i ned in S t a n ojk o va v. Ho lder, th e B oa rd ’s re gu lat ion s a n d d ec isi o ns do no t prov ide a us efulde fi ni ti o n o fpe r se cut i o n, an d th e B oa rd se em s t o h av e a b an d o n ed th is d ifficu ltN o. 12

- 2320 9

Ou r c a s e s i l l u s t r a t e th i s fi n e p a r s i n g o fmi s e r y a n d c r u el t y. 3 For cas es revers ing findings ofno past perse cuti on, s ee , e. g. , Sta nojkova , 645 F. 3d at 947- 48 ( param il it ary polic e i nvad ed ho m e, bea t ap p lican t an d held g u n to his hea d , sexu ally fo n d le d h is w ife , an d ro b b ed th e c o u p le ); Vlad i m i ro va v. A shc ro ft, 37 7 F .3d 690 , 69 2 ( 7 th C ir. 20 04 ) (one b eatin g cau sed m isc ar ri age , an d appl i c ants uffer ed two o the r phys i c al as s aul t s an d d et en tio n s a n d w a s th re a te n ed w ith sex u a l a ssa u lt); Bace v. A sh c ro ft, 352 F. 3d 1 1 3 3 , 1138 ( 7th Cir

. 2003) ( app li cant w as (co n tin u ed ...) re sponsibi l i ty to the c ourt s. 645 F. 3d 943, 94 8- 49 ( 7th Cir. 20 11) , ci ti ng Sa hi v . Go nz a les , 41 6 F
. 3d 587, 58 8- 89 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) , a nd G o m es v. G o nz a les , 47 3 F
. 3d 746, 75 3- 54 (7th C ir. 2007). Ou r case s r evi ew i ng deni al s o fas ylum can re ad l i ke g r i m e xe r c i s e s i n mea s ur i ngthe p r e c i s e e xt e nto f hum an cruel ty and m i ser y. W e tr y to dis ti ngui sh be twe enha r as smenta nd pe r se cut i o n, “ be tw ee n the n asty a nd the barbar i c. ” St anojkova , 6 4 5 F
. 3 d a t9 48. H ow m an y tim e s w a s the victim beaten ? H ow severe w er e t h e b ea tin gs ? W er e b on es br ok en ? D id th e v ict im l ose co nsci ousness ? H ow m any t eeth w er e knocke d out? W er e ther e perm anent i nj uri es or scar ring? How ser i ous were the thre ats, a n d how cruel l y were they com m unica ted? That grim acc ounti ng ca nnot be a v o i d e d

. B e c a u s e o fth e d e fe r e n t i a ls t a nda r d o fr e v i e w, our j ob i n thes e ca ses i s o rdi nari l y t o d ecide whether the e v i de nc e wo ul d com pel any r ea so n able tr i ero f f act to fi nd thatpri orabuse o f t h e pet i ti oner s a m ounted t o p e r s e c u t i o n wi th i n th e me a n i n go fth e l a w. 310 N o. 12

- 2320

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 bea ten o n f our oc c as i ons , hi s f ac e was c utwith a r az or, an d h e w a s for ce d to w a tc h h is w ife b ei n g ra p ed ); Begzat ow sk iv. INS , 278 F. 3d 665, 670 ( 7th Cir . 2002) ( ethni c Albanian s oldier s i n S e rbi a n arm y w er e f or c e d i nt o ba t t l e a s h uman s hi e l ds w ith o u t a m m u n iti o n an d to o ls n ee d ed for su rv iv a l); A s a ni, 1 5 4 F
. 3 d a t 7 2 1 ( a p p l i c a n t wa s de t a i n e d i n c e l l f o r t wo wee ks w ith on ly enou gh room to st and hand cuffed to radiat or, w as g iv en on e slice of bre ad an d on e g lass o f w ater a d ay , lost hi s j ob, an d was l at erdet ai ne d aga i n a nd be at en, l os i ng t wo t ee th)

. Com p are tho s e t o the f ol l owin g c as es affi rm i ng fi ndi ngs ofno pas tp ersecu tion : Nzeve v. Ho l der, 582 F. 3d 678, 683- 84 ( 7th C ir
. 2009) ( app li cant suffered bli st ers and b ruis es a n d w a s th re a te n ed w ith d e a t h ); M em a v. G on zale s , 474 F. 3d 41 2, 41 6- 18 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( appl i c antwas be at enunc ons c i ous wh i l e i n de t e n t i o n, b u t de n i a l o f a s y l u m wa s r e v e r s e d f or fa ilu re to a d d re ss fe a r o f fu tu re p er se cu tio n ); B ejko v. G on zale s , 468 F. 3d 482, 485 ( 7th Cir

. 2006) ( app li cant w as detained t wic e, once f or t wo w ee ks i n pr i m i t i ve c ondi t i ons without en ou g h foo d an d w ater , b u t w itho u t n e e d f o r m ed ical trea tm e nt, a nd a ppl i c a ntwa s thr e a t e ned tha th ou s e wou l d b e b l o w n u p ); Z hu v. G on zale s , 465 F. 3d 316, 319 ( 7th Cir

. 2006) (o n e b e a t i n g w ith h ea d inju ry re q u ir in g sti tc h es ); Prel a v. A shc ro ft, 394 F. 3d 515, 518 ( 7th Cir

. 2005) ( app li cant w as int erro gat ed, s ea rc he d, an d det ai ne d f or 24 ho ur s , ar re s t ed, an d th re a te n ed w ith u n sp ec ifie d inju ry ); D andan , 339 F. 3d at 573- 74 ( appl i c antwas det ai ne d f or thr ee days withou t food, i nt er ro g a te d , an d b ea te n re su lti n g in a sw o lle n fac e); Y a d eg a r- S a rg is v . INS , 2 9 7F
. 3 d 5 96, 602 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( ha r a s s m e nta nd h a r dshi p d id not s how pers ecuti on; app lic a n t had not been d et a i n ed o r p h y sic a lly as sa u lte d ); Ska l a kv . INS , 944 F. 2d 364, (co n tin u ed ...)N o. 12

- 2320 11

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 36 5 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) ( a p p l i c a n twa s j a i l e d t wi c e f o r th r e e d ays a n d in te rr o g a te d ab o u t p o lit ic a l a ct iv ity ); Za l eg a v . INS , 916 F. 2d 1 25 7, 1260 ( 7th Ci r. 19 90 ) ( appl i c antwas det ai ne d and i nt er ro gat ed s eve ra l t i m es an d s uffer ed e c ono m i c l os s es but w a s n o t p h y sic a lly ab u se d ). I n the cl ose cas es, wh er e a re aso nabl e t ri ero ff act coul d m ake a deci si on e i therway, we shoul d be abl e t o defert o the j udg m en t o fthe i m m i g r at i o n j udg es a nd th e B o a r d . B ut the im m igrati on j ud ges an d the B oard tu r n the s y st em ups i de do wn i fthe y us e o urde ferenti aldeci si ons as set ti ng new, l ower fl oo rs f or hum an cr uel ty than o ur i m m i gr ati on law sa ys m ust be tol er ate d w i thout gr anti ng as yl um . That i s what has happ ened i n thi s ca se. I t was a re ver sibl e e rr oro fl aw a nd the c a s e mus tb e r e man de d. W e exp ress no o pi ni o n a t th i s ti m e o n whe th erthe i nci dents S i rbu d es c rib ed ar e s eve re eno ugh to com pel a fi ndi ngo fpa stpe r se cut i o n. On r emand, tho ug h, the Bo ar d wi l lne ed to c o ns i dera ll th e ev i den ce o fpe r se cuti on a nd in p ar ti cul arwil lneed t o add re ss the s i gni fi cance ofS i rbu’ s t est i m ony that he was bea ten t o th e po i nto fl o singc o ns ci o us ne ss and suffer i nga c o ncu ssio n w hi l e in pol i ce c ustody. W e a re co nfi dent that th i s ev i den ce i s m o r e th ans uffi ci en t to s uppo r t a fi ndi ng ofpast perse cuti on. S ee St anojkova , 64 5 F.3 d at 948 ( use of s ign ifica n t p h ys ica l forc e a ga in st a p er so n ’s b od y is p er se c u tio n ); B e v cv . INS , 4 7F
. 3 d 9 0 7, 9 1 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 95) ( appli cant foras yl um m ust s how “ sp eci fi c, detai l ed f acts su p p or tin g t h e re as on ab len e s s o f h er fea r th at sh e w ill be singled out for persec ut ion”).12 N o. 12

- 2320 I fthe Board co ncl ud es that Sirb u has dem onst ra ted pas t per se cut i o n, th e bur den wi l l sh i ft to th e go ve r nm ent t o prove thatchange d ci rcum sta n c es m ean that Sirb u ’s fe ar of p er se c u tio n in M o l d ov a is n o lon ge r w ellfou n d ed . See 8 C .F.R . § 20 8.1 3(b )(1) (ii). T h e B oa rd d id n otad d re ss th at iss u e, an d w e a l s o d o n otad d re ss it at thi s s tag e. W e G RANTthe pe ti ti on for r ev i ew a nd R EMA ND the c as e f o rfur th erpr o cee di ng s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

5- 20- 13