In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________

No. 07-2550

JOCELYN I. BOLANTE,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General 

of the United States,

Respondent.

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A95-719-764

____________

ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 2008—DECIDED AUGUST 27, 2008

____________

Before BAUER, KANNE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Jocelyn I. Bolante, a

native and citizen of the Philippines who was detained

while attempting to enter the United States without a

valid visa, sought asylum and withholding of removal.

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied him relief, and the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. He now

appeals that determination. Because we find that Bolante
2 No. 07-2550

has not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution

upon returning to the Philippines, we affirm the decision

of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.

In 2001, Bolante was appointed to serve as Undersecretary for the Philippines Department of Agriculture by the

current president of the Philippines, Gloria MacapagalArroyo. Bolante remained in that position until 2004, when

he resigned to take a position on the Board of Directors of

Rotary International. Following his resignation, the

Senate of the Philippines formed a committee to

investigate charges of corruption within the Department

of Agriculture. This Committee alleged that President

Arroyo diverted funds from the Department to fund her

reelection committee and investigated claims that Bolante

took direction from Arroyo to divert the funds; the Committee eventually issued a report on the corruption scandal, dubbed by the media the “Fertilizer Scam.” The report

found that Bolante was the main architect of a diversion

of funds and recommended that he face criminal charges.

The Committee further recommended that other members of President Arroyo’s government, including Felix

Montes, the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, be criminally charged.

During the Senate Committee’s investigation, Bolante

was subpoenaed to testify. After receiving the subpoena,

Bolante left the Philippines for a series of Rotary International meetings. He has since refused to testify before

the Senate Committee, and the Senate has issued a warrant for his arrest. Media reports have indicated that

several members of the Senate have set a bounty for

Bolante’s capture at 200,000 Philippine pesos. 
No. 07-2550 3

Bolante was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor on January 2, 2006, and remained in the

country until June 2006, when he left for further meetings

in other countries. He attempted to return to the United

States on July 7, 2006. Unbeknownst to Bolante, the United

States Embassy in Manilla had revoked his visa. He was

denied entry into the United States and detained by

authorities for non-possession of a valid visa. Bolante

has remained in custody pending our review.

On September 27, 2006, Bolante filed an application for

asylum and withholding of removal with the Immigration Court. At the hearing on the merits of his claim

before the IJ, four witnesses, including Bolante, testified.

Bolante testified that the entire investigation into the

Fertilizer Scam amounts to nothing more than vindictive

political gamesmanship. According to Bolante, the party

in opposition to President Arroyo has engaged in an allout campaign to overthrow the Arroyo government.

After two attempts to impeach President Arroyo, the

opposition party switched tactics and turned to frivolous

investigations of lesser targets, such as Bolante, with close

affiliations to the President but without testimonial

immunity given to cabinet members. Bolante has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the Fertilizer Scam, and

has challenged the validity of both the Senate Committee’s

investigation and the warrant for his arrest in the Philippine courts.

Bolante’s son, Owen, flew from the Philippines to testify

at the hearing. He stated that he and his family have

received numerous threats, including a threatening text
4 No. 07-2550

message. One such warning involved a threat of kidnapping. He further stated that he and his family have seen

suspicious cars near their home. Bolante’s son could not

state who threatened him or elaborate on how the threats

related to his father.

 Montes, the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture mentioned in the Senate Committee’s report, testified before

the IJ that President Arroyo’s enemies are using Bolante

as a tool to get to the President. He also testified that

Bolante’s life would be in certain danger if he returned to

the Philippines, but could not give specific details about

the threat, and used equivocal words such as “might,”

“could,” and “may” to describe the harmful consequences

of Bolante’s return. For his own part, Montes has testified

before the Senate Committee on the Fertilizer Scam, even

though he had immunity from doing so. He has since

kept his position in the Department of Agriculture and

has not been arrested or harmed.

Finally, Adolph Estrada, a retired Major General with the

Philippine Air Force, testified about the nature of the

danger facing Bolante upon his return. Though Estrada

insisted that Bolante would be harmed, he, like Montes,

could not give any specifics on the nature, source, or

motivation of the threat facing Bolante.

On February 9, 2007, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”)

denied Bolante’s application for asylum. The IJ found

that, though Bolante was credible, he failed to meet his

burden of past persecution or well-founded fear of future

persecution. The judge noted that the vague threats and

opaque predictions of harm were insufficient to establish
No. 07-2550 5

Bolante’s claim. The judge further found that the Senate

Committee, by issuing the subpoena and warrant, sought

to investigate and eventually prosecute Bolante for a

violation of the Philippine law, and not persecute him

on account of political opinion or membership in a particular social group. In addition, the IJ held that because

Bolante failed to meet the lower burden of proof of

asylum, he could not meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. On June 25, 2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the IJ’s decision and

issued its own decision and order. This timely appeal

followed.

Bolante argues that we should reverse because he has

met the standards for both asylum and withholding of

removal. He argues that he has a well-founded fear of

persecution upon returning to the Philippines, and that

the central reasons for the persecution were on account

of his political opinion and membership in a particular

social group.

Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while

supplementing the decision with its own reasoning, the IJ’s

decision, as supplemented by the BIA’s decision, becomes

the basis for review. See Aung v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 742, 745

(7th Cir. 2007). We review the denials of asylum and

withholding of removal under the substantial evidence

standard. Id. Under this deferential standard, we uphold

the decision so long as it is “supported by reasonable,

substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Oryakhil v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 993, 998 (7th

Cir. 2008) (quoting Chatta v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 748, 751 (7th
6 No. 07-2550

Cir. 2008)). We will overturn the decision to deny relief

“only if the record compels a contrary result.” Id. (quoting

Mema v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 412, 416 (7th Cir. 2007)).

Bolante has the burden of establishing eligibility for

asylum. Firmansjah v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 598, 601 (7th Cir.

2005). Bolante may prove that he is a refugee, and therefore eligible for asylum, by showing that he is unable or

unwilling to return to the Philippines because of a

well-founded fear of persecution on account of his race,

religion, nationality, membership of a particular social

group, or political opinion. Tadesse v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 905,

908 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A),

1158(b)(1)(A)).

“Persecution” means more than harassment, and may

include such actions as “detention, arrest, interrogation,

prosecution, imprisonment, illegal searches, confiscation of

property, surveillance, beatings, or torture.” Gomes v.

Gonzales, 473 F.3d 746, 753 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Toptchev v.

INS, 295 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2002)). We have also

defined “persecution” as behavior that threatens “death,

imprisonment, or the infliction of substantial harm or

suffering.” Boci v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 762, 766 (7th Cir. 2007)

(citing Sharif v. INS, 87 F.3d 932, 935 (7th Cir. 1996)).

Unless a petitioner establishes past persecution—and

Bolante has abandoned on appeal his claim that he was

persecuted in the past—a petitioner must show that the

fear of future persecution is subjectively genuine and

objectively reasonable. Ahmed v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 669, 674

(7th Cir. 2006). The “subjective” component rests primarily

on the applicant’s testimony and the credibility of that
No. 07-2550 7

testimony. Capric v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1075, 1085 (7th Cir.

2004). The IJ found Bolante’s testimony to be credible,

which satisfied the subjective element. We will not

disturb this finding. The “objective” component may be

established “either through the production of specific

documentary evidence or by credible and persuasive

testimony.” Gjerazi v. Gonzanles, 435 F.3d 800, 808 (7th Cir.

2006) (citation and internal quotation omitted). An

asylum applicant must “present specific, detailed facts

showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be

singled out for persecution.” Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d

611, 618 (7th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (quoting

Sayaxing v. INS, 179 F.3d 515, 520 (7th Cir. 1999)).

We agree with the IJ’s decision that Bolante’s fear of

persecution is objectively unreasonable. Bolante has not

produced enough specifics or details about the fear of

persecution that he faces in the Philippines to carry his

burden. The threats to Bolante’s son and family do not

identify the source of the threat and do not indicate that

they are motivated by any animus towards Bolante. The

testimony of Montes and Estrada that Bolante would be

in danger upon return also fails for lack of specificity,

particularity, or substantiality. Bolante points to the bounty

as support for his fear, but the details of the bounty, and

the use of bounties in the Philippines in general, lack any

real clarity. Even if the bounty still exists, it does not

show any threat of long-term harm to Bolante; the sole

purpose of the bounty is to secure Bolante’s testimony

before the Senate Committee.

It is by no means a stretch to suggest that the core of

Bolante’s fear is, in fact, a fear of prosecution for his alleged
8 No. 07-2550

role in a corruption scandal. Though prosecution can

become persecution, courts uniformly recognize that a

foreign state’s prosecution of its citizens for violating its

own laws does not automatically equate with persecution.

See, e.g., Guchshenkov v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 554, 559 (7th Cir.

2004); Shardar v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 318, 323 (3d Cir. 2004);

Bandari v. I.N.S., 227 F.3d 1160, 1168-69 (9th Cir. 2000). We

have held that “prosecution for activities that would be

illegal under our own laws is not grounds for asylum.”

Guchshenkov, 366 F.3d at 559. Similarly, being suspected

of a crime does not necessarily render an asylum

applicant eligible for asylum. See Djouma v. Gonzales, 429

F.3d 685, 688 (7th Cir. 2005).

The difficulty lies in how to fashion the nature of the

potential prosecution against Bolante—that is, whether

the prosecution of the Senate Committee would be of a

political nature or legitimately related to graft or corruption. Bolante may be correct that he is but a pawn in the

opposition party’s efforts to oust President Arroyo. But if

he concurrently acted to further a scheme to defraud the

Philippine public trust and divert funds to a political

campaign—activity that would certainly be illegal under

our own laws—then facing prosecution for his acts

would not be grounds for asylum.

A more fundamental problem for Bolante is that he

does not presently face prosecution. No charges have

been filed against him, and although the Senate Committee has recommended charges against Bolante, they

have also recommended charges against Montes, who has

yet to face prosecution. Other members of President
No. 07-2550 9

Because we find that Bolante has not demonstrated a well- 1

founded fear of persecution, we need not address whether the

persecution was on account of a political opinion or social

group.

8-27-08

Arroyo’s government, including Montes, have testified

before the Senate Committee on the Fertilizer Scam and

have not been physically harmed or unjustly prosecuted.

In short, the record does not establish that any harm

will come to Bolante on his return; it is not even certain

that he will face arrest or have to testify before the

Senate Committee, given that Bolante has contested the

validity of both.

1

Because we find that Bolante cannot meet his burden of

proof on his asylum claim, his withholding of removal

claim must fail a fortiori. Soumare v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 547,

552-53 (7th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, we DENY the petition for review and

AFFIRM the judgment of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.