2004 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
12-7-2004 

# P e 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 . 03-3906

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_2004

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 2004 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

" P e v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 97. 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_2004/97NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
NO. 03-3906
NOEL VENTURA PE, Petitioner

v. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Petition for Revi ew of an Order of the United States Department of Justi ce Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals BIA No. A73-478-141
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

December 6, 2004 Be for e: R EN DE LL , FIS HE R a nd Y OH N* , Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed: December 7, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT

__________________________________ * Hon. Willi am H. Yohn, Senior Judge of the Unite d States Distri ct Court f or the Eastern Dis tri ct of Pennsy lvania , si tti ng by des ignati on.2

RE ND EL L, Circuit

Judge
. No el Pe p etitioned this C ourt fo r review of the Atto rney G enera l’s den ial of h is claims for asylum, relief from removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( “CAT”). Our juri sdiction ari ses under 8 U.S. C. § 1252(a). We will deny the pe ti ti on f orre vi ew. I. Pe is a native and ci tize n of the Phil ippines who entered the United States wit hout inspection on or abou t Octobe r 11, 1998 . He w as placed in re mov al proceed ings wh ere he conceded deport abili ty , but c laimed el igibi lit y for asy lum and requested withholdi ng of removal as wel l as r elie f under the CAT because of persecuti on in his home countryon account of his imputed politicalbeliefs. As w e write solelyfor the parties, our recitation of the facts will be li mited to those
neces sary

to our dete rminati on. At

a hearing be fore t

he Immig ration J udge ( “IJ” ), Pe claimed he experienced difficulties in his home country because of his efforts t o expose the op eration s of a crimin al syndica te wh ose m emb ers inc luded high rank ing o fficials in the P hilippin e gov ernm ent. In Fe brua ry 1998 , Pe w as en gage d in se lling ca rs in his h om e tow n of Pue rto Princes a for Jude Est

rada (“Est

rada”), the son of t

he then Phil ippines presi dential candidate Joseph Estrada. Aft er sel ling two cars, Pe sa w a televi sion re port expos ing a stol en car sy ndicat e involvi ng Estrada whic h made Pe suspici ous that the car s he was1 Pre side nt E strad a w as re mo ved fro m o ffic e on Jan uar y 20, 2 001
. See Maria Ressa,

Arroyo Sworn i n as Presi dent of Phil ippines (Jan . 21, 2 001 ), at http ://arc hiv es.c nn.c om /20 01/ AS IA NO W /sou thea st/01 /20 /ph ilipp ines .estra da.0 2/. Former Presi dent Estr ada was brought to tri al for c harges that he pl undered app rox ima tely $7 8 m illion in b ribe s an d em bez zled fun ds d urin g hi s 31 mo nth s in o ffic e. Defian t Estrada A ppears in C ourt (O ct. 1, 2 001 ), at http ://ed ition .cnn .com /20 01/ W OR LD /asia pcf/sou thea st/10 /01 /ph il.estra da/in dex .htm l. Est rad a’s c orru ptio n tria l is cu rren tly ong oin g. S ee J oel F ran cis G uin to, Prosecution, Defense Clash i n Estrada Pl under Tria l (O ct. 27 , 200 4), at http: //news. inq7.ne t/breaking/index. php?index=1&story_id=16265. 3 sellin g w ere s tolen
. Pe m et w ith E strad a in M anila wh ere h is su spic ion s w ere c onf irme d. Estrada ask ed Pe to lea ve Pue rto Princesa un til after the presidential election. Ho wev er, Pe returned to thecity

and began to i nform people about the sy ndicat e and that

the car s he had sold t

hem were stole n. Soon afte r his return to Puerto Pri ncesa, Pe be gan to rec eive phone call s thre ateni ng his l ife i f he did not stop telli ng people about the car s. After Joseph Estr ada’s i naugurati on as Presi dent of the Philippines i n June 1998, 1 Pe f led to Manila and went into hiding wit h his famil y, but conti nued to rec eive threate ning phone call s. I n July1998, aft er dis covering t hat poli ce had ransa cked his r oom, Pe beli eved that he had no choice but

to lea ve the Phil ippines for fear of his l ife. II. The IJ found that Pe was credible and that Pe had est ablis hed his el igibi lit y for asy lum. Although Pe’s pers ecuti on was a resul t of a desire to pr otect a crimi nal conspir acy, the IJfound that the ide ntit

y of t he leader s of thi s conspir acy a dded a poli tical dimensio n to Pe’s pe rsecution. Th is, the IJ believed, wa s sufficient to find that Pe’s4

persecution was a result of a political opinion imputed to him and qualify ing him as a refugee under 8 C.F.R. § 2 08.13(b)(2). The gov er nme ntap pe al ed to th e Bo ar d of Imm ig ra ti on A ppe al s ( “BI A”) . O n appeal, the BIA upheld the IJ’s determi nation of Pe’s cre dibil ity

and his acc ount of the events t hat le ad to his asy lum appli cati on. The BIA noted, however , that Pe’s pol iti cal opinion was not

the basi s for the acti ons taken against him. Pe’s treat

ment “ste mmed from his i nvolvement wit h a crimi nal sy ndicat e which happened to beled bypolitical notables.” Pe’s clai m for asylum could not, therefore, be established because the adverse treat ment he recei ved was unrelated to one of the five es tabli shed grounds for refugee stat us under 8 U.S. C. § 1101(a)( 42)(A). The BIA sust ained the appeal and reversed t he IJ’s decisi on, ordering Pe deported from the United States. Pe th en file d a pe tition fo r review with this C ourt alle ging that the BIA erred in finding t hat Pe was not el igibl e for asy lum because Pe’ s persec ution was a result of an imputed pol iti cal opi nion. III. Because the BIA is sued it s own decisi on, we revie w the decisi on of the BIA, and not that o f the IJ. Awolesi v. Ashcrof t , 341 F .3d 22 7, 231 (3d C ir. 2003 ); Abdulai v. Ashcroft , 239 F .3d 54 2, 549 (3d C ir. 2001 ). We mu st uph old the BIA ’s dec ision if it is supporte d by subs tanti al evi dence in the record, sustai ning that decisi on “unless the evidence not

only supports a contrary conclusi on, but c ompels it .” Zubeda v. Ashcroft ,5

333 F.3d 463, 471 ( 3d Cir.2003) (quoti ng Abdille v. Ashcroft , 242 F.3d 477, 483-84 (3d Cir. 2001 )). IV. To qu alify for a grant of asylum, P e must pro ve that he m eets the statutory def initio n of a ref uge e, i.e
. , that he is an alie n w ho is u nable or un willing to return to his home country“because of per secuti on or a well- founded fear of per secuti on on account of race, reli gion, national ity , membershi p in a part icular soci al group, or poli tica l opinion.” 8 U .S.C. § 110 1(a)(42)(A ). This requires P e to present ev idence that the h arm infli cted upo n hi m w as m otiv ated bec aus e of his a ctua l or im put ed p olitic al op inio n. See Amanfi v. Ashcroft , 328 F.3d 719, 728 (3d Cir. 2003). As the Supreme Court not ed, “[t]he ordin ary mea ning of the phra se ‘pe rsecu tion on acco unt o f . . . political o pinion ’ in § 101(a)( 42) is pe rsecution on account of the vi ctim' s poli tica l opini on, not t he persecutor’s. ’” INS v. Elia s-Zacari as , 502 U .S. 478, 482 (1992). T he fact that Pe ’s persecutors appeared to have a gene rali zed poli tica l moti ve underlying their acti ons is not suffici ent to e stabl ish Pe’s fear of per secuti on “ on accountof [his] politi cal opinion, as § 101(a)( 42) requi res. ” Id. (emph asis in original). The rec ord in this case p rovides suf ficient evidenc e to suppo rt the BIA ’s conclusi on that Pe was not persecuted on account of hi s poli tica l opini ons. Pe was assis ting i n the poli tica l campaign of J oseph Estr ada and his pol iti cal opi nion was in favor of Estrada ’s candi dacy. By his own admissions, Pe’s deci sion t o discl ose the ac tivi ties of6

the synd icate w ere m otivate d by his o wn hon esty rather th an an y political op positio n to Joseph Estr ada. Because Pe’ s clai m was based on a fear of r etribution over a personal matter rather than on expre ssion of hi s poli tica l opini on, asy lum could not be grante d on this b asis. See Mol in a- Mor al es v. INS , 237 F.3d 1048, 10 52 (9th C ir. 2001). V. For the foregoing rea sons, we wil l DENY the petiti on for revi ew of the decis ion of the Board of Imm igration Appeals.