2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-30-2005 

# I gn at o v v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-2409

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " I gn at o v v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 501. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/501NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 04- 2409

____________ AL EK SAND AR

I GN AT OV , Pet i t i oner v. A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S*, A t t or neyG ener al

of the U nit ed S t at es, R es pondent (*S u b sti tuted p u rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 4 3 (c)(2))

________________ ON PETI TI ON FOR REV I EW OF O RD ER O F THE BO AR D O F I M M I GR ATI ON APPEALS

( N o. A 79- 042- 836)

A r gued J ul y 12, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , B E C K E R , and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui t J udges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember 30, 2005) M el i nda B as ar an ( A r gued) 1061 M ai n St r eet Pat er s on, N ew J er s ey07503 C ouns el for Pet i t i oner2

N or ah A . Schw ar z ( A r gued) M ar y J ane Candaux A nh- T hu P. M ai T hankful T . V ander s t ar L ind a S . W ern ery O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on C i vi l D i vi s i on, U . S. D ept . of J us t i ce P. O . B ox 878, B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D . C . 20044 C ouns el for R es pondent

____________________ OP I NI ON

____________________ P E R C U R I A M: T h is is a p etitio nf

o r rev iew o f

a d ecisio no f

th e B o ardo f

Imm ig ratio nA p p eals (B IA ), w h ich af

f irm edw ith o u t o p in io na d ecisio no f an Imm ig ratio nJu d g e (IJ). T h e IJ, am ong othe r

thi ngs , de ni e d the pe t i t i one r ’ s r e que s t s for wi thhol di ng of r e m ova l and asylu m . The pr i nc i pa l i s s ue pr e s e nt e d i n thi s c a s e i s whe the r the r e c or d c ont a i ns s uffi c i e nt ev id en ce to sup p o rt th e IJ’s f in d in g th at th e p etitio n er d idn o t p ro v e th at h e h as a w ell f o u n d edf ear th at h e w o u ldb e p ersecu tedif retu rn edto h is n ativ e co u n try o f M aced o n ia. We re ject this ar gu m ent andho ld that the I J’ s fac tual find ings cann ot be dist urbed u nd er the ve ry l i m i t e d s t andar d of r e vi e w s e t out i n § 242( b) ( 4) ( B) of the I mm i gr at i on and Nati on al it

y Act, 8 U .S.C. § 12 52 (b)( 4)(B) ( re qu ir ing that a fact ual finding be sust ai ned u n less “an y

reaso n ab le ad

j u d icato r w o u ldb e co m

p elledto co n clu d e to th e co n trary”).3

Th e pet it ioner i n this c as e was an of fice r with the Mace do nia Nat ional Polic e Fo rc e. He si gn ed an agree m ent t o rem ai n w it h the Fo rc e for ei gh t years . During that ti m e, a s ub st anti al nu m

ber of A lbanians began to enter Mace do nia, and there were c l a s he s be twe e n the Al bani ans and m e m be r s of the For c e . The pe t i t i one r c l a i m s that

he receiv edrep o rts o f

ab u ses b y

th e F o rce an dth at h e cam e to f ear th at, if

h e rem ain edw ith the For c e , he woul d be c om pe l l e d t o part i c i pat e i n s uc h a c t i vi t i e s . He the r e for e fl e d the co u n try . Peti ti on er ’s ar gu m ent i s that, if re turned to Mace do nia, he wo uld b e per se cute d be c aus e of hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on, i . e . , hi s vi e w that the Ma c e doni an pol i c e s houl d not en g ag e in ab u siv e acts d irectedat th e A lb an ian s w h o en teredth e co u n try . In o rd er to e s t abl i s h that

he i s e l i gi bl e for

a s yl um , the pe t i t i one r

wa s obl i gat e d t o s how ( a ) that the M aced o n ian p o lice w ere co mm ittin g im p ro p er acts; (b ) th at th ey

w ere o rd eredto d o so b y sup erio rs; an d(c) th at o f f icers w h o ref

u sedto co m

p ly w o u ldb e sub

j ectedto ad v erse c ons e que nc e s s e ve r e e nough t o r i s e t o the l e ve l of pe r s e c ut i on wi thi n the m e ani ng of the asylu m statu te. F o r p resen t p u rp o ses, w e assu m e th at th e ad m in istrativ e reco rdis adequate t o sat is fy

pron g (a) se t out abov e, i. e. , that m em bers of the Mac edon ian P olic e Fo rc e e ng aged in widesprea d m is conduct dir ec te d against the e nter ing A lbanians. W e li kewise as sum e t

hat the evidence i s a dequ at e t o sat is fy pron g (b). After t es ti fying that h e h a dr e c e i v e di n f

o rmat i o nab o u t

ab u s e s “ f r o m c o up l e o f

c l o s e f r i e n d s w h o w e r e my ro o mm ates at th e p o lice acad emy ,” th e p etitio n er ad d ed : “T h ey w ere f o rcedto d o th at.4

That wa s the or de r

t o work. ” A. R. 45. Howe ve r , e ve n i f the e vi de nc e i n the adm inis tr at ive r ec ord w as suff ic ie nt to com

pel a re as on able fact

find er to conclude that th e p ro n g s (a) an d(b ) w ere satisf ied , th e p etitio n er’s arg u m en t f o u n d ers b ecau se th ere is p lain ly in su f f icien t ev id en ce to co m

p el su ch a co n clu sio nreg ard in g p ro n g (c). O u r rev iew o f

th e ad m in istrativ e reco rdh as n o t d isclo sedan y d irect ev id en ce to sup p o rt su ch a f

in d in g , an dat o ral arg u m en t, p etitio n er’s co u n sel w as u n ab le to p o in t to any s uc h e vi de nc e . W e r e c ogni z e that s ubor di nat e s i n apar am i l i t ary or gani z at i on ar e not ge ne r a l l y a l l owe d t o di s obe y

or de r s wi thout

s uffe r i ng a dve r s e c ons e que nc e s , but we do not be l i e ve that

ar e a s onabl e fa c t

fi nde r woul d be c om

pe l l e d t o c onc l ude that

pe r s e c ut i on n ecessarily

w o u ldh av e f

o llo w edu n d er th e circu m stan ces p resen t h ere. A reaso n ab le fa c t fi nde r , t aki ng i nt o a c c ount the i l l e ga l i ty

of the or de r s i n que s t i on and the ne e d for the ad v erse co n sequ en ces to rise to th e lev el o f p ersecu tio n , co u ld , ino u r j u d g m en t, reaso n ab ly

rej ect su ch a f

in d in g . F o r th ese reaso n s, w e h o ldth at th e reco rdis ad equ ate t o s upport

the I J ’ s r ul i ngs r e gar di ng e l i gi bi l i ty for a s yl um and, afort i or i , wi thhol di ng of r e m ova l . W e have c ons i de r e d a l l of the pe t i t i one r ’ s ar gum e nt s , and s e e no ba s i s for g ran tin g th e p etitio n .