2003 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 7-16-2003 

# Ahmed v . Atty Ge n U SA 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 . 02-3315

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work 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_2003

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 2003 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 . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ahme d v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 362. 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_2003/362NOT PRE CEDENT IAL

UN ITED STA TES CO UR T O F A PPE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

NO. 02-3315

OMAR F. AHMED,

Petitioner
v. JOHN AS HCROFT , A TTORNE Y GENERAL OF THE UNIT ED STA TES OF AMERI CA, Respondent
On Petiti on for Review of an Order of the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (No. A73-543-250)

Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

June 27, 2003 Be for e: S LO VI TE R, A M BR O, Circuit Judges , and TU CK ER *, Distri ct Judge (Fil ed: Jul y 16, 2003)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT

* Hon. Petres e B. Tucker, United Stat es District Court for the Eas tern Dis tri ct of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.2

SL OV ITE R, Circuit

Judge
. Petitioner Omar F. Ahmed, a s tate less Pal esti nian born in Saudi Arabia, petitions for revi ew of a July

26, 2002 order

of the Board of I mmigrati on Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed an I mmigrati on Judge’s dec isi on to deny Ahmed’s applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. Ahmed contends that he is entitl ed to asylum as a ref ugee because he has a well-f ounded fear t

hat, if ret urned to SaudiArabia, he will be pe rsecut ed as a member of a p articular social group under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), i.e. , stat eless Palestinians. Because Ahmed was placed in depor tati on proceedi ngs before Apri l 1, 1997, and his fi nal order

of deportation was i ssued by the BIA after

October 31, 1996, we have juri sdict ion under 8 U.S. C. § 1105a (1994), as amended bythe transit ional r ules for judici al revi ew in Secti on 309(c)( 4) of the I llega l Immigration Refor m and Immigrant Responsibi lit

y Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 208, 110 Stat . 3009-306, 3009-625 (Sept . 30, 199 6) (“ IIR IRA ”). See also Sandoval v. Reno , 166 F.3d 225, 229 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying IIRIR A transitional rules o f jurisdiction). I. Ahmed is a 37-y ear old native of Saudi Arabia of

Palest inian de scent. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) adm itted him int o the United States as a non-immigrant vis itor

for plea sure on January31, 1995 with pe rmissi on to remai n in the country untilJune 30, 1996. He remained bey ond that date without authori zati on and the3

INS brought this deportation proceeding against him on February 19, 1997. On August 26, 1997, Ahmed admitted that he had over stay ed his vi sit or’s vi sa and, in reli ef of dep orta tion , sou ght rev iew of h is ap plica tion s fo r asylu m a nd w ithh old ing of d epo rtatio n. An Immigrati on Judge (“I J”), following a hearing on t

he merit s of Ahmed’s appli cati on for as ylum, de termin ed tha t Ah med had n ot estab lished p ast per secu tion or a we llfounded fear of per secuti on if ret urned to SaudiArabia and deni ed his appl icat ions for asy lum and withhol ding of deport ation. App. at i ii ( IJ’s Oral Decisi on and Order). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s ruling. Ap p. at ii (BIA ord er). The IJ reco gnize d, bas ed on Ah med ’s testim ony, that P alestinia ns in S audi A rabia are rel egated t o offici ally sancti oned second-cl ass st atus i ncorporat ed into t he legaland socialstruc ture of SaudiArabia. Ahmed sought to port ray this treat

ment as pers ecuti on providi ng grounds for a sylum. He test ifie d that a lthough hi s parent s have li ved in Saudi Arabia for 50 years and Ahmed was born in t he country , nei ther he nor his par ents have been able to obtain Sau di citizen ship b ecau se Sa udi A rabia re serve s citizen ship for pe ople of Saudi desce nt. To r emain in t he country , Pale sti nians must renew thei r resi dence permits every

two year s for a fee of

2,000 Riy als ( about $530). Palest inians must als o be “sp ons ore d” b y a Sa udi Ar abia n citi zen to o wn real p rop erty, w ork , or o wn a bu sine ss. To illustrate the harsh effec ts of t his re quirement , Ahmed relat ed that his fat her had successf ully operate d and expanded a grocer y store for 15 y ears, only to see hi s Saudi sponsor – t

he de jure owne r o f the s to re – t ake th e bu si nes s a wayonc e i t b ecame4

profitable. Eac h time a P alestinian wishe s to chang e jobs, he m ust chang e sponso rs for a fee of 6 ,000 R iyals (about $1,600). Ahmed testif

ied about his experience whil e growing up in SaudiArabia. He was barred from certai n acti viti es duri ng high schooland initially was not allowed t o atte nd a univers ity

because he was an al ien. Although he was able to gain a dmissi on to King Saud Un iversity in R iyadh be caus e of h is talent for soc cer an d the c onn ection s of a fam ily friend , he w as fo rced to study po litical and adm inistrative scienc e at the univ ersity because al iens coul d not choose t heir own topi c of study . After graduati ng from the univ ersity and s earch ing fo r a job for m ore tha n a year, A hm ed w as hire d in 1 993 to sell cars. H e testified that he wa s paid one- third as mu ch as his Sa udi co unterp arts an d had to work significantly

longer hours. As a co nseque nce of P alestinian suppo rt for Iraq during the Gu lf War, there w ere heightened restri ctions on Palestini ans in Saudi Arabia and apparently increased t ensions. Ah med wa s stopp ed by a p olice o ffice r in late 1 992 for p assing throu gh a r ed ligh t wh ile drivi ng, which Ahmed clai ms was merely a prete xt to harass a Pal esti nian. Ahmed w as jail ed for two day s on thi s occasi on. In mid- 1993, Ahmed was jail ed by SaudiArabian
coas t guard offic ials for five da ys becau se he wa s susp ected of p lanting mine s wh ile fishin g. A hm ed alle ges th at on b oth o ccasio ns the police abus ed an d m istreated him
w hi le h e w as in cu sto dy. Ahmed obtained a vis itor ’s vis a from the U.S. Consul in July 1995 and vi sit ed the5

United Stat es for four

months which, he test ifie d, st rengthene d his desire to l ive in t he Un ited Sta tes and “ma ke this w ond erful c oun try my hom e.” A pp. at v iii. He re turned to Saudi Arabia but

re-ent ered the United Stat es for t he last time i n December 1995. II. The IJfo und

Ahme d t o be cr ed ib le but de ni edhi s appl ic at io n f oras y lum. He
conc luded that A hm ed on ly show ed tha t Palestin ians livin g in S audi A rabia a re sub ject to discr iminat ion but t

hat such di scri minati on did not rise t o the le vel of per secuti on. The BIA affirmed the I J’s deci sion t o deny Ahmed asy lum or withhol ding of deport ation. We app ly a deferent ial st andard of review to the BIA ’s decision. While we must ascert ain whether

the BIA’s fact

ual det erminat ions ar e support ed by s ubstant ial e vidence, Sen athi ra jah v. INS , 157 F.3d 210, 216 (3d Cir. 1998), we may de cline to uphold t he BIA ’s fin din gs o nly if th e ev iden ce c om pels a co ntra ry con clus ion
. 

### INS v. EliasZacarias , 502 U.S . 478, 48 1 n.1 (19 92); Abdil le v. Ashcr oft , 242 F.3d 477, 483-84 ( 3d Cir. 2001 ). We defer to the BIA’s inte rpret ation of the Immigr ation and National ity Act (“INA”) unles s the i nterpr etat ion is “‘arbi trar y, capric ious, or manifestly contrar y t o the stat ute. ’” Kat si s v . I

NS , 997 F.2d 1067, 1070 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoti ng Che vr on U .S .A
. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council , Inc. , 467 U .S. 837, 844 (1984)). Section 208(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b), provides that t he Attorney

General has d iscretion to gran t asylum to refug ees. T he IN A d efine s a ref ugee as a p erson wh o is unable or unwil ling t o retur n to his country

“because of per secuti on or a well- founded6

fear of per secuti on on account of r ace, r eligi on, nat ionality , membershi p in a particular socialgroup, or

politicalopinion. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1101( a)(42) (A). The asylum appli cant bears t he burden of est ablis hing that he fall s withi n this defini tion. 8 C.F.R. § 208. 13(a) (200 3); Ab dille , 242 F.3d at 482. Esta

blis hing eli gibil ity

for withhol ding of deport ation requir es a showing of a “cl ear probabi lit y of per secuti on,” a hi gher st andard than that f or asylum
. INS v. Stev ic , 467 U .S. 407 , 430 ( 198 4); Fatinv. INS , 12 F.3d 1233, 1238 (3d Cir. 1993 ). Though the INA provides no definiti on of persecution, t his court has hel d that persecution connote s extr eme behavior, including “threats t o life , confi nement, t ortur e, and economic res tri ctions so severe that t hey cons tit

ute a threat to life or freedom. ” Id. at 1240. T his definition do es not include “all treatment that our so ciety regards as unfa ir, unjust , or even unl awful or unconstitutional. ” Id. The thrust o f A hm ed’s c laim is th at his account of wides pread le gal and economic discr iminat ion agai nst Pal esti nians i n Saudi Arabia, and his i mprisonment on t wo occasions ( for a tot al of seve n days ), pr ovides t he basis for a w ell-founded fear of p ersecution. W hile we ap preciate A hmed ’s strong desire to rem ain in th e U nited S tates, the B IA’s decisio n w as ba sed o n a rea sona ble inter pretation of the defini tion of pe rsecut ion under t he INA. A holding that the tr eatment to which Ahmed was subject consti tutes persecution would lower t he bar for as ylum and
mea n that “ a sign ifican t perce ntage of the wo rld’s po pulatio n w ould qualif y for asylum in this country .” Id.7

Ahmed has not shown that Pal esti nians i n Saudi Arabia e xperienc e treatment t hat rises to th e lev el of

per sec utio n. See Matter of Mogharrabi , 19 I. & N. Dec. 439, 446 (BIA 198 7) (a w ell-fou nded fear o f pers ecutio n “ca n be b ased on w hat ha s hap pene d to others wh o are s imilarly situate d”). Ind eed it a ppea rs that the disad vanta ges h e fac es in Saudi A rabia apply not just to Palestinians b ut more b roadly to all foreigners, wh o are also deni ed Saudi ci tize nship. Addressing s ubstant ially t he same clai m from another Saudi-bor

n Palest inian in Fad dou l v . I NS , the C ourt o f A ppea ls for th e Fifth Circu it denied asylum , holdin g that “ [t]o fin d per secu tion un der the se circu mstan ces w ould requ ire a fin ding that jus san guin is is per secuti on per se .” 37 F.3d 1 85, 189 (5 th Cir. 1994). The Eleve nth Circuit rece ntly concurred wit

h this holding in Najjar v. Ashcroft , 257 F .3d 1262 , 1291-92 (11th C ir. 2001). Ahm ed points to the tw o instances o f his imprison ment in 1 992 an d 1993 for a totalof seven day s as a basi s for hi s fear of per secuti on. Although Ahmed contends he was imprisone d because he was Pal esti nian, the IJfound that in both instances the poli ce had gro und s to h old Ah me d. W e ha ve n o ba sis to rev erse that find ing of fact. Ahmed also seeks t o charact erize the economic di sadvantage s he faces as persecution, but

his t esti mony beli es thi s conclus ion. He i s a graduat e of King Saud Un iver sity, som ethin g th at ap par ently few oth er P ales tinia ns in Sau di A rab ia ca n cla im. With the ex ceptio n of

one yea r after h is grad uation from the U nivers ity, he wa s able to obtain emp loymen t. Ahm ed’s b rother -in-law is a Sa udi citize n w ho w ould be ab le to8

spon sor him for a r esiden ce pe rmit or jo b in the future . Othe r cou rts of a ppea ls hav e held that c om par able eco nom ic ha rdsh ip d oes not rise to the le vel o f pe rsec utio n. See, e. g. , Shari f v . I

NS , 87 F.3d 932, 935 (7th Cir . 1996) ( finding t hat economic hardship di d not
amo unt to p ersecu tion w here a lien lost o ne job but fo und anoth er); Sab al lo -Co rt ez v. INS , 761 F .2d 1259 , 1264 (9th C ir. 1985) (holding that denial of fo od discou nts and w ork permit f or more desi rable t

ype of empl oyment was not persecution). We also hold that the ec ono mic re strictions Ah med desc ribes a re no t so sev ere as to cons titute a thre at to life o r fre edo m a mo unt ing to p erse cutio n. Nor are we persuaded t hat Ahmed’s st atus as a stat eless Palest inian i s a basi s for finding t he requis ite f

ear of pers ecuti on. Notwiths tanding t he recogni tion by

both the United States and the internat ional community of the problem of stateless ness, state lessn ess a lon e do es n ot w arra nt as ylum
. Najjar , 257 F.3d at 1293. We agree with t he Fifth Circuit which also was unwilling to consider Saudi Arabia’s tr eatment of stateless Palest inians as “pers ecuti on.” Faddoul , 37 F.3d at 190. III. Ahmed also argues t

hat the BIA’s summary af firmance pr ocedure offends due proc ess an d rules of ad minis trative law . Eve ry court o f app eals tha t has ex amin ed this issue ha s found the BIA’s procedure for s treaml ining r eviews under 8 C.F. R. § 3.1(a )(7) to be constitutional. Although thi s iss ue is cur rently pendi ng before this court en banc, we conclude that

Ahmed’s claim on t

he merit s is insuffici ently compelli ng to warrant

ourholding up di sposition of thi s appeal until t hat deci sion i s forthcoming. IV. Fo r the reas ons set f

orth , we wil l den y Ah me d’s p etitio n fo r rev iew
.

/s/ Dolores K . Sloviter Circuit Judge