NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 08a0733n.06 Filed: De cembe r 2, 2008 No. 07-3418 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
SHE L SEY SUS AN SCA VENG ER, Petitioner,
v. MI CHAEL

B. MUK ASEY, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF AN O RD E R O F T HE B OARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

B e fo re : G I L MA

N, SUT TO N, and

KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s.
SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e . Sh e lse y

Sc a ve ng e r, a nativ e and c iti zen of Cana da , c ha lle ng e s a de c isi on of the B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls (BI A) deny inghe r a pp lic a tio ns fo r a sylum , withholding of r emoval and r elief unde r the Convention Ag ainst Tort u re . For the re asons that follow, we de ny

the petition for re view.
I.
Fr om 1996 to 1999, Scaveng er, f ormerly named Susan Fa lls, li ved in B ritish Col umbia and worke d as a bus driver for the City of West Vancouve r transit sy stem. At some point during he r tenure there , she dete rmined that a numbe r of c ustomers wer e not pay ing the ir bus fares , and she broug ht this problem to the attention of m anag ement and eventua lly to the public. I n May 1999, theNo. 07-3418

Scave nger v. M

ukasey

-2- transit sy stem fired he r for insubordination. Claimi ng that her c riticism of t h e company ’s farec oll e c tio n p ra c tic e s im

pr op e rl y pr omp te d th e dis c ha

rg e , Scave ng e r fi le d a

n a rb itr a tio n a c tio n a g a ins t the transit sy stem in an attempt to g et her j o b b ac k
. S h e eventua lly settled the cla im for 27,500 Canadian dollar s but was not reinstated. During th e n e xt f

o u r y e ar s , Sc a v e n g e r h a d d if f ic u lt y f in d in g lo n g - te r

m e mp lo y

me n t. She
rec eived une mploy

ment benef

its for the first y ear

afte r she lost her job, but for rea sons that the rec ord does not disclose she a

ppare ntly was not elig ible for these benef its afte r t hat y ear

and appa rently was
never elig ible for welfa

re. She suppor

ted her self with “odd jobs,” JA 91, one of whic h included a y ear -long g overnme nt gr ant “to start a rec y cling business,” JA 62—what became a f orm of “dumpster div[ing]” by

which she w o u l d coll ect bottles, amongother items, for r ecycling , J A 92. B ut s he ne ve r fo un d long -t e rm e mpl oy me nt, and by 20 03 sh e wa s “li vin g in [h e r] c ar a nd liv ingwi th friends,” J A 63. Scave ng er e ntere d the United States for the first time in 2003, and she e ntere d the
c o u n t r y i nJ u l y 2 0 0 4 w i t h t h e h o p e s o f s t ayi n g h e r e p e r

m an e n t l y. Scaveng er a

pplied for a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval and re lief u n d er the Convention Ag ainst Torture , claiming economic deprivation because her public e mploy er ha d “blac klisted” her and bec ause “ four levels of g overnme nt in Canada ” had “ perse cuted” her “ economica lly ” due to he r views about fa

re c ollection. J A 91. The Immigration J udg e (I J ) denied a ll of Scaveng er’ s applications. In doing so, the I J acc epted Scaveng er’ s alleg ations that she was a “whistle blower ” wh o h a d b e e n “ a c te d a g a ins t f or [he r] p oli tic a l op ini on .” JA 20 . But he no net hele ss h e ld t hat, “wha tever

economic de privation [S cave ng er] was subjec t to,” it did “not rise to the level ofNo. 07-3418

Scave nger v. M

ukasey

-3- perse cution [required] under the A ct.” J A 32. The BI A af firmed, e x cept in two re spects: I t found it unnecessa

ry to determine w hether

the g overnme nt ha d acte d ag ainst her on a ccount of her political opinion, namely

her w histle blowing, a

nd it declined to af

firm t he I J to the extent he speculate d that Scaveng er’ s persona lity

may have a ffe cted he r inability to find a job.
II.
A.
To be e lig ibl e fo r a sylum , a n a lie n mu st p ro ve that sh e is una ble or un wi lli ngto r e tur

n h ome “bec ause of

perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution on account of rac e, re ligion,
nati on a lity , me mbe rs hip in a pa rt ic ula r s oc ia l g ro up , o r p oli tic a l op ini on .” 8 U .S. C. § 1101(a) (42)( A). W h en t h e BIA larg ely aff irms the I J ’s dec ision without discussion but adds commentar

y of its own on a fe w points, we “dire ctly revie w the dec ision of the I J while consider ing the additional comment[s] made by the B I A.” Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 283 ( 6th Cir. 2005). We w ill re ve rs e the B I A’ s de c isi on on ly if the a pp lic ant sh ow s “ that no re a so na ble fa c tf ind e r c ou ld fail to find the re quisite fear of per secution,” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 484 (1992)—that t h e e v i d e n c e i no t h e r

w o r d s “ n o to n l y su

pp or ts [re ve rs a l] bu t c om pe ls it,” id. at 481 n.1. Scaveng er se eks as y l u m o n the g round that she wa s “per secut[ed]” on the basis of her “political opinion.” The a lleg ed per secution stems from economic deprivation ca used by the Canadian g overnme nt’s blacklisting o f h er , and the c onnection to political opinion turns on the
a lle g a tio n th a t her e mpl oy me nt dif fi c ult ie s ar os e a ft e r she c a lle d atte nti on to t he Va nc ouve r t ra ns itNo. 07-3418

Scave nger v. M

ukasey

-4- sy stem’s lenient fa

re- collection pra ctices. Consistent with the BIA’s decision, we ne ed not dec ide wh e the r t

he g ov e rnme nt’ s r e sp on se to S c ave ng e r’ s w his tle -b low inga c tiv iti e s amou nte d to perse cution on account of political opinion
. We instea d need only addre ss whether

her diff iculties in finding a

job amounted to perse cution.
Ec on omi c de pr ivatio n is a tw o- sid e d th e or

y of pe rs e c uti on . On th e one sid e , e c on omi c pe rs e c uti on

is n ot a tr a dit ion a l g ro un d fo r s e e kin g a sylum , a nd on e c an w e ll i ma g ine wh y . I t w ou ld
seem o d d to say

that an inability

to obtain pu bli c employ ment on acc ount of political opinion
ne c e ssa ri ly c on sti tut e s p e rs e c uti on . O the rw ise , e ve ry patr on a g e fi ri ng a ft e r e ve ry re g ime c ha ng e in another country would establ i sh a cog nizable basis for an a sy lum claim in this country . And we doubt that many g overnme nts, pa rticularly a country the siz e of Canada , have the authority to preve nt public and

private e mploy ers f

rom hiring someone be cause of her political opinion. On the other sid e , it is n o d ou bt t he c a se that a ma lic iou s g ov e rnme nt be nt on br ing ingan in div idu a l to he e l c ou ld d o s o j u s ta s e f

f e c t i v e l y b y p u n i s h i n g h e r e c o n o m i c a l l y a s b y p u n i s h i n g h e r p h ys i c a l l y.
Th e B I A a

nd our c ourt

have ba lanc e d th e se c on sid e ra tio ns by ho ldingthat g ov e rnme ntcause d “ec onomic deprivation” may “constitute[] perse cution” but “only when the r esulting conditions are suf

ficiently sever e.” Da ne

sh v ar v . A sh c ro

ft , 355 F.3d 615, 624 n.9 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (cit i n g In re Ac os ta , 19 I . & N . Dec . 211, 222, 1985 WL 56042 (B I A 1985)). A s the BIA put the point more rec ently , while asylum applicants “ne ed not demonstrate a total depr ivation of livelihood
or a tot a l w ith dr awa l of

a ll e c on omi c op po rt

un ity in o rd e r t o d e mon str a te ha rm a mou nti ngtoNo. 07-3418

Scave nger v. M

ukasey

-5- pe rs e c uti on ,” the y

mus t e sta

bli shthat th e y

fa c e d a “del iber a te imp os iti on of se ve re e c on omi c disadvantag e or the deprivation of liberty , food, housing , employ ment or other e ssent ials of life.” In re T-Z , 24 I . & N . Dec . 163, 171, 173 (B I A 2007) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). Scaveng er c annot s how t hat C anada purposef ully imposed “seve re economic disadva ntag e” on her or at least c annot show th at t h e rec ord compe ls such a finding . Her principal theor

y of economic pe rsec ution is that the Canadian g overnme nt bla cklisted her on a nationwide basis. There is “a li st,” she stated, “ that the Canadia n g overnme nt has of people who should never g et jobs” and
s h e wa s on that “blac klist.” J A 61. The pr oblem with this t heory is that the I J did not credit her testimony on this point . “[A]l though,” he explained, “the Court has no proble m believing that any time the bus company or t he union was asked for a refer ence , they said bad thi ng s about her, a s I ’m sure that they

did. Nonetheless, that doe s not constitute a nationwi d e b l ac k list . . . .” J A 20–21. Sc a ve ng e r n e ve r d ir e c tly

c ha lle ng e d th e I J’s cred ib il it y fi nd ingon

thi s p oin t, a

nd no t surp ri sin g ly the B I A did not disturb it. Nor is t h ere any thing in the r ecor d that casts doubt on this conclusion.
That leaves the possibility that, even if

the Canadia

n g overnme nt did not place Scave ng er on
a natio nw ide bla c kli st, the po or job re fe re nc e s that the tr ans it sy ste m g a ve he r a ft e r the dis c ha rg e sti ll rose to the leve l of ec onomic perse cution. Putti ng to one side the que stion whether our immigration laws pr ov ide re lie f w he ne ve r a fo re ig n- g ov e rnme nt a g e nc y re fu se s to g ive a po si ti ve re fe re nc e to someone it has discha

rg ed, the f

irst signa l that Sca

veng er was not subje cted to a c og nizable case of economic pe rsec ution is her settlement ag ree ment with the Vanc ouver tran s i t s y s t em. That the Canadian le g al sy stem permits a dischar g ed public employ ee to se ek leg al re lief i f s h e has bee nNo. 07-3418

Scave nger v. M

ukasey

-6- tr e a te d im

pr op e rl y of fe rs so me e vi den ce t

hat ou r n or the rn ne ig hb or wo uld no t li g htl y

e ng a g e in economic pe rsec ution. And whatever else S cave ng er’ s C$27,500 settlement with the transit sy stem may sug g est about the validity of her whistle-blowing claim, it does not sugg est that the g overnme nt was try ing to make her pe nniless. L ikewise, ha d the g overnme nt been be nt on making he r imp e c un iou s, it w ou ld n ot h a ve su pp or te d h e r w ithun e mpl oy

me nt b e ne fi ts fo r a y e ar, and it w ou ld not have g iven her a y ear -long g rant to support her rec y cling business. The re cord is silent on why Scaveng er’ s unemploy

ment benef

its ended whe n they

did and on why she was ineligible for we lfare , if ind e e d s he wa s, bu t c ri tic a lly Sc a ve ng e r n e ve r a lle g e s th a t th e g ov e rnme nt’ s a ll eged an imo sity ag ainst her ha d any

thing to do with her

rec eipt of or e ligibility

for these benef

its.
Other r ecor d evidenc e supports the de nial of t his claim. I n addition to the C$27,500 she
re c e ive d a ft e r h e r dis c ha

rg e , Scave ng e r ha d othe r wa y s to supp or

t her se lf duri ng the ne xt fo ur y e a rs . She sta rt e d a dumps te r- div ing bu sin e ss that c oll e c te d re c y c la ble s that c ou ld b e ne fi t lo c a l c ha ri tie s. No one sug g ests that she left that business beca use the g overnme nt interfer ed with it; rather, she was “burne d out” by it, a

nd it a ppare ntly did not g ener ate sufficie nt income. J A 93. She later worke d intermittently

clea ning house s and wa s employ ed by the S alvation Army during the holiday

season. And it be ars emphasizing that her arr ival in the United States has not ma rkedly chang ed the kind of
w o r k s h e h a s b e e n qu a li f

ie d to h an d le o r h e r s ta

n d ar d of living. Com

pa re J A 63 (“ [T] he last fe w months I was in Canada

. . . Iwas living in my

car and living with f

riends.
. . . I didn’t have a job.”) ,No. 07-3418

Scave nger v. M

ukasey

-7- with J A 94 (de scribing the “odd jobs” she has taken in the Unit ed S tates, i ncluding “ele ven months of house- sitti ng and living in [her] car ,” and he r cur rent living arr ang ements, which involve “ a che ap, dingy room in a rooming house”)
. She also ref

used to look into or acc ept ce rtain ty pes of e mploy

ment befor e she le ft Canada
. De sp ite he r i nte re st i n se rv ing the pu bli c , sh e did

no t a pp ly to a ny pu bli c -i nte re st o rg anizatio ns in Canada . Whil e she offe rs no cre dible basis for fea ring that the g overnme nt would have pr evente d her f rom wor k in g a s a w a it

r e s s , s h e e xp la in e d th a t it “ w o u ld b e la s t o n [h e r ] li s t o f th in g s to do” beca use she “ can’t s t an d t o s ee food thrown a way .” JA 70. “[O] ne’s inability to obtain [ her] pref err ed g overnme nt job” does not establish perse cution. Daneshv ar , 355 F.3d at 624 n.9. And while she a cknowledg ed that she did not mind clea ning house s, she testified that “the re are a lot of people, I think a lot of illega l aliens there that are doing the same thing, so it’s not ea sy to find work there as it is here.” I J Hr’gTr. 4 4 . I ndeed, in he r openingbrief, she conce des that employ ment opportunities are available in Canada but she has not pur sued them beca use they are “menial.” Br
. at 22. Yet one cannot br ing a cog nizable econom i c p er s ecution claim merely beca use a w eak economy has under

mined one’s job prospe cts or beca u s e it has under mined one’s pr efe rre d job p rospects. See D aneshvar , 3 5 5 F
. 3 d a t 6 2 4 n . 9
. A ll o f th is s u g g e s ts n o t th a t the g overnme nt economica lly

perse cuted he r, but that she wa s unable to find long- term employ ment that best suited her. That does not amount to the “deliber ate imposition of severe economic disa dvantag e” by the Canadian g ov ernment. In re T-Z , 2 4 I . & N. De c . at 17 1 ( int e rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mit te d) ; see Daneshv ar , 355 F.3d at 624 n.9 (“Ec onomic depr ivation constitutes persec ution only when theNo. 07-3418

Scave nger v. M

ukasey

-8- re su lti ng c on dit ion s are su ff ic ie ntl y se ve re .” ); se e als o Za le

ga v . I NS , 916 F.2d 1257, 1260 ( 7th Cir. 19 90 ) ( ho ldi ngtha

t pe tit ion e r’ s c omp la int that “ he c ou ld n ot g e t a g ov e rn me nt j ob c omm e ns ur a te with his education and tra ining . . . did not rise to the leve l of perse cution”).
Sc a ve ng e r i ns ist s th a t th e I J a pp lie d th e wr on g sta

nd ard fo r d e te rm ini nge c on omi c pe rs e c uti on

by re qu ir inghe r “ to pr ov e in abil ity to o bta in e mpl oy

me nt o f a ny kin d in Cana da ” in order to qualify

for a sy lum. Br. at 20. But we do not rea d the I J ’s opinion as imposing such a require ment. He mer ely

“d[id] not find fully

cre dible” one of

Scaveng er’ s fac tual claims—“that she
wa s una ble to f ind any kin d o f e mpl oy

me nt a ny wh e re in Cana da ,” JA 20 —a state me nt that g oe s to the cr edibility

of Sc av e ng e r’

s asser tion that she could not find any employ ment in the country , not to the showing neede d to qualify for a sy lum.
B. Having failed to de monstrate that she is e ligible for asylum, Scaveng er nece ssaril y ca nnot satisfy the more demandingstandard f or withholding of

remova l. Se e Y

u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 703 n.3 (6th Cir. 2004). And Scave ng er ha s failed to addre ss in any detail t he I J ’s rejection of her separ ate c laim for re lief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture, le aving us no basis for a ddressing it ourselves. Se e Le ar

yv . Li v ing

sto n Co un ty , 528 F.3d 438, 449 ( 6th Cir. 2008).

III
. For these re asons, we de ny

the petition for re view.