## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N os. 10

- 1100 & 10

- 1101 R AS A J ONAI T I EN E AND M ARIU S B UB EN AS, P etitio ners, v.

E R I C H. H OLDER, J R
. , A ttorn ey G en eral of the Unite d Sta tes , R es pond ent
.

On Pe tition fo r Review o f the O rde rs o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

. No s. A 077-651- 529, A 077-495-492

A RGUED O CT OB ER 28, 2010

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 26, 2011

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd S YKES, Circ uit Ju dg es . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . R as a Jonai ti en e an d M ar i us Bu benas w er e c i ti zens ofLi thuani a in 200 0, wh en ea ch gained entr y in to the U ni ted S tat es thro ugh the use ofi l legal l y- obt ai ned vi sas . They do not dispute that Bu ben a s , al ong w i th J onai ti ene’ s br othe r Daruas Dau g e l a , a r r a ng e d t o o b t a i n a Uni t e d S t a t e s v i s a fr om2 N os. 10

- 1100 & 10

- 1101

a m an nam ed Dari us Rei ka. B u b en as used that vi sa to co m e to the Uni te d S ta te s i n Mar ch2 00 0, a nd J o nai ti en e f o l l o wed i n J ul y oftha t y ea r . Bub en as a nd J o na i ti en e ha ve thr ee c hi l dr ent o g ethe r, tw o b orn in Li th ua ni a an d the thi rd bo rn in the U ni ted S tat es. E v e n t u a l l y, th e U n i t e d S t a t e s g o v e r n me n tb e c a me aw ar e o fthe vi sa f ra ud schem e th at i ncl ud ed br iber y o f a U n it e d Sta te s F or eig n O ffice r inL ith u an ia t o ob ta in th e vi sa s, a nd the pe ti ti o ne r s wer e bo tha r r ested a nd c h a r g e d i n th r e e c o u n t s o fa n i n e t e e n - c o u n ti n d i ct m en t infed er al c ou rt . Th e p et itio n e rs ag re ed to co op er at e in the investi gat i on a nd pro secuti on o fo therm em ber s o f th e sc he m e. Ba se d o n tha t co o peration, the g o ve r nm en t di smi ssed two co unt s o fthe s upe r ce di ngi ndi ct m en t an d fil ed a sub stan tial assistan ce m otion. Pe t itione rs ple d gui l ty to the r em ai ni ng co unt and w er e s en tence d t o o ne y e a r o fp r o b a t i o n. OnJ un e 1 7, 2 0 0 8 , the De pa rt
m ent o fH om el and Secur i ty i ni tia te d rem ova l pro ceedi ngs a gainst pet i ti oner s, charg i ng them with r em ova bi l i tyf o r b eingi na dm i ss ibl e atthe t i m e of en try a nd for h avi ng be en co nvi cted o fa cri m e invol vi ng m or al tu rp itud e. 8 U

. S. C

. § 1227(a )(1)(A ), 1182(a)(7)( B )( i) (I I ), an d 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i )

. The peti ti oner s co nceded their re m ovabi l i ty, but sought r el i effro m r em ova l thr ough ap p lica tio n s fo r as ylu m an d w ith h old in g of re m ov al. Petiti o ne r s co nt en d tha t th eya r e fea r fulo fr etur ni ng to Lithuania because o fthr eat s from Dari us Rei ka, wh o r es i des the r e, a nd b ec au se the Li th ua ni ang o ve r nm en t is eit h er u n w illing or u n ab le t o p ro te c t t h em . In thei r w ri tte n sta tem ents as w el l a s th ei r tes ti m ony atN os. 10

- 1100 & 10

- 1101 3 th e he ar i ng, the pe ti ti o ne r s d etai l ed th r ea te ni ngpho ne cal l s m ade to them byRei ka afterthei r ar re st. J onai ti ene’ s br othe r, wh o h ad ar ra nged f orthe paym en ts to R eik a fo r th e v isa s a n d w h o a lso res id es in th e U n ite d Sta te s, re c eiv ed th re at s fro m R eik a a s w ell, and ult i m ate l y c om m i tte d sui ci de. The peti ti oner s a l so int r o d uc ed eviden ce th at th e L ithu an ian ne w sp ap ers h ad p u b lish ed art icle s d e ta ilin g t h eir co op er at ion in th e g o ve r nm en t i nv es ti g at i o n int o the v i sa fr au d sc he m e. The y a ss er te d tha t be cau se o ftha t co o per at i o n, they w oul d be in danger f ro m R ei ka i fretur ned to Lithuani a. The y al so ass er ted thattheywould be consi dered tr ai tor s in thei r countr y, but coul d not e xplai n upon questi oni ng wh y a c ooperat i ng witne ss i n a c ri m i nal case would be consi dered a tr ai tor, norhow such cooper ati on in i denti fyi ng fra ud i n the A m er i can em bass y w oul d be co nsi dered a tr ai tor ous a ct a gainst Li thuani a. I n ad d iti on to th e threa ts from Reika, the p etitioners pr o vi ded evi den ce tha t afte r J o na i ti en e’ s th r ea te ni ng cal l s, the doorto J onai ti ene’ s m othe r’s apar tm ent was set on fire in L ithu an ia. T h e pet iti one r’s chil d ren w ere st ay in g w ith Jon ait ien e’s m ot h er atth at tim e. In r es ponse to tha t fi r e, the Uni te d S ta te s g o ve r nm en t br o ug htthe c hi l dr ena nd J o na i ti en e’s mothe r t o the U n ite d Sta te s t em p or ar ily u n d er Sign ifica n t P u b lic Ben efi t Pa r o l e. The fire de par tmenti nv es ti g at ed th e bl aze, but acco rdi ng to the p et itioners the pol i ce di d not do so

. The only evi dence pres ented r el ati ng to the Lithuanian gov er nm ent w as thei r i nadequ ate re sponse w i th res pect4 N os. 10

- 1100 & 10

- 1101
to Rei ka and the fi re . W h en the vi sa f ra ud sche m e was fi rs t r eve al ed, Rei ka w as detai ned by the Li thua ni an pol i ce fortwo w eek s but then r el eas ed

. N o charg es wer e fi l ed ag ains t Re i k a. M o r eo ve r, a s was no te d, the peti ti oner s a rgue thatthe pol i ce f ai l ed to i nvestigate the fi re atthe apart m ent. The I m m i gr ati on J ud ge ( IJ ) d en i ed the re quest for a s y l u m, a n d th e B o a r d o fI mmi g r at i o n Ap p e a l s ( B I A) affi r m ed i n a separ at e o pi ni o n. The IJ he l d tha t th e harm thatthe peti ti oner s fear ed i n Lithuania w as not on ac co unto fa pr o te ct ed g r o und, a nd tha t no c o m pet en t evi dence w as prese nted to support the c onte nti on that the g ove rnm ent w as co m pli ci t in the vi sa f ra ud o r w ou ld b e s up port i ve ofthe perso ns such a s Rei ka that the pet i ti oner s fear ed. T he BI A echo ed thos e ho l dings in i ts sep arate op inion. I t agreed that the p etitioners ha d f a i l ed to pr o vi de ev i den ce o fg o ve r nm en t com pli ci ty, and note d that a p er so n aldi spute ca nnot su p p or t a c l a i m of as ylu m . Re lyin g on ou r d ec isio n in Jun Y ing Wa ng v. G o nz a les , 445 F.3d 993 , 999 (7th C ir. 2006), th e B I A n o t e d th a tth e fe a r o fr e t r ib u t i o n fr o m c o - d ef en dants f oran a l i en’ s co oper ati on with the U n i ted S tat es gov e r nme nt, i n e xc ha ng e f o r a r e du c e d s e nt e nc e , i s n ot a wel l

- f ounded fearbas ed on a pro tect ed gr ound. A ccor dingl y, the BIA hel d that the peti ti one rs f ai l ed to es tabl i sha ne xus b etween th e fea r ed per se cut i o n a nd a p r o t e c t e d g r o un d. W here the BIA adopts the d eci si on o fthe IJ and supp l em ents that deci si on with i ts o w n re aso ni ng, we re vi ew th e IJ’s d ec i s i o n as su p p lem en te d

. Ka ha rud in v . Go nz a les ,N os. 10

- 1100 & 10

- 1101 5 500 F. 3d 619, 62 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)

. U nd erthe substa nti al evi dence te st, we affi rm the denia l o fas yl um and of wi thh o l di ngo fr em ova l b y the IJ a nd BI A i fi ti s “ ‘ s up p or te d b y rea so n ab le, su b st an tia l an d p ro b at iv e e vid en ce o n the re cor d consi dered as a w hol e. ’ ” Wang, 44 5 F.3 d at 9 9 7, q uot i ng IN S v

. Eli as - Zacar i as , 50 2 U.S

. 47 8, 48 1 (1 99 2); Gjeraz i v. G o nz a les, 43 5 F .3d 80 0, 80 7 ( 7th C ir. 2006). I n or der t o obtai n asy l um , the peti ti oner s m ust est abl i sh thattheyare refugees , wh i ch i s defi ned as p erson s un able or un w ill ing to return to their coun try “bec au se of persec ut ion or a w ell -f ou nd ed f e a r of p ersecu tion on accou nt of race, reli gion, na tionality, m em bersh ip in a p ar tic u lar so c ial gr ou p , or p olit ica l op in ion .” 8 U SC § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A ); Wang, 4 4 5 F

. 3 d a t99 7; Herna nd ez-B a ena v. G o n z a les , 41 7 F

. 3d 720, 72 2- 23 ( 7th Cir

. 20 05)

. The fi rs t par t o fth at d efi ni ti on m ay be pr obl emat i c f o r the pe ti ti o ne r s butwe ne ed no t ta r r y l o ng ther e be cause the l att erparti s insurm ountabl e. The fi r sto bs ta cl e th atpe ti ti o ne r s f ace is thatpe r se cutio n u n d e r th at d efin itio n d oe s n oten c om p as s p u re ly pri vate act i ons. In or der t o dem onst ra te pe rs ec uti on o r a w ell -f ou nd ed f e a r ofpers ecu tion, th e pe titi one rs m us t demons tr at e th atthe th reat en i ngc o nduc t i s bythe gov er nm en t, or thati t i s bypri vate per sons w hom th e g ov er n m en t is u n w illing or u n ab le t o c on tr ol. Ta piero de O rejuela v. G o nz a les, 423 F. 3d 666, 672 ( 7th C ir. 2 0 05); G a lina v. I.N .S., 21 3 F

. 3d 95 5, 95 8 ( 7th Ci r . 20 00)

. The peti ti oner s hav e p re sented ver y l i ttl e e vi dence ofsuch go ve rn m en t c om p licit y or ina b ilit y. W e h av e o n ly a l-6 N os. 10

- 1100 & 10

- 1101 l eg at i o ns tha t Re i k a was no t pr o se cut ed bythe L i th u a n i a n g o v e r n me n t f o r th e v i s a f r a u d s c h e me , a nd that the pol i ce di d n ot i nvest i gat e the fi re atthe apart
m ent. M i ssing i s any i nd i cato r as to w h y t h ose de c i s i o ns we r e ma de , a nd wh e the r the y c o ns t i t ut e d a de v i a t i on fr o m s t a nd a r d o pe r a t i ngp r o c e du r e s . We do not know, f ori ns ta n ce, wh etherthe i nvest i gat i on o f fire s is n or m ally leftto th e fire d ep ar tm e n t, w h ich d id i nv es ti g at e th e in ci den t, no r do we k no w w he th erthe Li th ua ni ang o ve r nm en t was pr es en te d wi ths uffi ci en t evid en ce to p rosecu te R eika but c hos e n ot to d o so. N everth el es s, e ven ifthe a l l eg at i o ns he r e wer e su ffi ci en t to dem onst ra te perse cuti on, peti ti oner s do n ot ev en al l ege that i t i s o n acco unt ofo ne o fthe prot ecte d gro und s. The peti ti oner s a sse rti n a c oncl us or y m anner that th eywer e m embe r s o fa p ar ti cul ars o ci alg r o up, b ut pr o vi d e no i den ti f i ca ti o n o ft ha t al l eg ed g r o up othe r than to identi fy them sel ves as i nfo rm ants w hose co o p e r a t i o n w a s i n d u c e d b y th e g o v e r n me n tth r o u g h p r o mi se s o fpr o te ct i o n. Ra th ertha n exp lai n h o w tha t co nst i tu te s a “s o ci algr o up” unde r the r efug ee de fi ni ti o n, the y a r g ue tha tthe Uni t e d S t ate s gov e r nme ntc r e a t e d a dan g er o us c o ndi ti on by i nduc i ngthe i r c o o per at i o n, and ther ef or e had an a ffi rm ati ve du ty to prot ect them from that da ng er. W e ha ve r ej ec te d a s i m i l ara r g um enti n Wang v. G o nz a les , 445 F.3d 99 3 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 06 ). Jun Y in g W an g, a n a t i v e o fC h i n a , wa s p r e s e n ti n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s u n l a wful l y ha ving o ve r st ay ed he r vi si to r ’ s vi sa, when she w as ar re ste d fo r her part i n a s chem e to obtai n So ci alN os. 10

- 1100 & 10

- 1101 7 Se c u rit y c ar d s u sin g fra u d u l e n t d oc u m en ts
. Id. at 994. W an g coo perat ed w i th the go ver nm ent’ s invest i gat i on an d in t u rn rec eiv ed a m or e le n ien t s en te n c e. Id. S he ap p lied f o r a sy lu m ba se d on h er fea r th at sh e w ou ld be a tt ac k ed byhe r c o defen dan ts , who wer e i n China a n d s o u g h tr e t r i b u t i o n f o r h e r c o o p e r a t i o n a g a i n s tth e m. Id. W e r ej ecte d the as yl um cl ai m , hol ding that W ang had f ai l ed to dem onst ra te that the per secuti on s he fear ed w as on a ccount of on e of the fi ve sta tutor i l y- prote c te d gro u n d s. W an g d id n otex p lain h ow h er c l aim fi t wi thin o ne o fthe pr o te ct ed g r o unds , c ho o sing i nstea d to ar gue that the te rm “r efugee” sho uld n ot be in te rp re te d to o rig id ly a n d th at sh e s h ou ld b e e ligib le because herper secuti on stem m ed fro m heras si sta nce to th e U n ite d Sta te s g ov er n m en t. Id. at 99 7. The peti tio n er s m i rr ortho se ar gum ents i n thei r bri ef s t o th i s co ur t. W e r ej ec te d tha t ar g um en t i n Wang, ho l di ng th at we a r e bo und b y the l an g ua g e o fthe s ta tu te , a nd that fea r ofper secuti on a s a r esul t o fa perso nal di spute r athe r tha n o n a cc o unto fa pe r so n’ s m em bersh ip i n a p ro tect ed gr oup f ai l s t o sat i sfy the defi ni ti on o fr efugee. Id. at 99 8; M ar q uez v. I
. N
. S. , 10 5 F

. 3d 37 4, 38 0 ( 7th C ir. 1997). A “social grou p ” un d er the A ct is on e ‘ w hos e m em bers sh ar e “com m o n c ha r ac te r i st i cs tha t m embe r s o fthe gr oup ei thercannot c h ange, o r shoul d not be r equi re d to change because such char acte ri sti cs a re fu nd am entalto th eir i nd i vi du ali denti ti es. ’ ” R a m o s v. Ho lder, 5 8 9 F

. 3d 426, 428 (7th C ir. 2009), q uot i ng In reKas i nga , 21 I

. & N

. Dec. 35 7, 36 6 (B IA 19 96 ); see also P o roj

- M e j i a v . Ho lder, 39 7 F ed. Appx. 2 34, 2 37, 20 10 W L 410 22 95 , 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)

. The8 N os. 10

- 1100 & 10

- 1101

so ci alg r o up, ho wev er, c an notb e defi ne d m er ely b y the f ac t o fpe r se cut i o n. See C a stillo -A ria s v. U .S. A tty. G en., 446 F. 3d 1190 , 11 98 ( 11th C ir. 20 06) ( “The r i sk ofper secuti on alo n e d oe s n otcr ea te a p ar tic u lar s o c i a l g ro u p w ith in the me a ning o f the I NA .

. . ” ) No r may a s o c i a l gr oup be defi ne d s o l ely b y the s ha r ed ch ar acte ris ti c o ff ac i ng dangers i n re tal i atio n f oract i ons they too k a gainst alle ge d p er se c u to rs . Wa ng v. G o nz a les , 44 5 F

. 3d 9 93, 99 8 (7th C ir. 2006); P a vly kv. G o nz a les , 46 9 F .3d 10 82, 10 88- 89 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ); P oroj-M ej ia , 39 7 F ed. A pp x. at23 7, 20 10 W L 41022 95 at 2. The peti ti oner s hav e no t a tte m pted to d ist in gu ish th eir c l a i m from th os e p re c ed en ts , an d in f act have m ade no ar gu m ent a s t o how theyco nsti tute a pro tect ed gr ou p u nd erthe A ct. They r el y instea d on thei r gener al i zed as ser ti on that the go ver nm ent m ust gr ant a syl um bec au se i t pl aced the m i n dangerby i nd uci ng the i r coo perat i on in the c ri m i nal cas e. That ar gum ent s uffer s fro m the gl ar i ng p robl em thatthey chose to co oper ate i n re turn forthe benefi t o fa l ess er se n te n c e, an d th at th e c h oic e t o p lac e t h e m s elv es in that danger w as th eirs no t that o fthe gov er nm ent. M o r e funda m en ta l l y, pe ti ti o ne r s f ai l t o i den ti fy a ny l e g a l a u th o r i t y f o r g r a n t i n ga s y l u m o n th a tb a s i s . As we not ed i n Wang, “ the r e a r e l e g a l a l t e r na t i v e s f o r a n a l i en pl ac e d i n d a n g e r b y v i r t u e o fh e r c o o p e r a t i o n wi th the gov er nm ent.
. . . [ T]he gov er nm ent m ay see k a n ‘ S- vi sa’ o n b eh alf ofan alien co op er at in g in a cr im in al in ve st iga tio n .” Wang, 445 F.3d at99 9 n .2, ci t i ng8 U .S.C . § 11 01 (a)( 15 )(S)(I) a nd U nite d State s v. Z en d el i, 180 F.3d 879 , 881 (7th C ir. 19 99 )

. In thi s ca se a s i n Wang, the gov er n m ent has chos en no t to pur su e th ato pti on f o r r ea so ns no t cl ea r o n theN os. 10

- 1100 & 10

- 1101 9

r ec o r d. The S

- vi sa, no t as y l um , i s th e av en ue b y whi chthe pet i ti o ne r s co ul d l awful l y re m ain in the Uni te d S ta te s, b ut th ati s no t a hand thatthi s co ur t ca n f o r ce . Be ca us e th e peti ti oner s hav e f ai l ed to dem onst ra te a wel l

- f ounded fear ofper secuti on o n acco unt ofa p ro te c ted gr ound fo r pur po se s o fa sy l um , the y c anno t m ee t th e m o r e st r i ng en t sta nd ar ds ofwithhol ding ofr em ova l wh i ch r equi re a s h ow in g of a cle ar p ro b ab ility of p er se c u tio n . To u r ev. H o lder, 624 F.3d 42 2 , 4 2 8 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); Kahar udi n v . G o nz a les, 500 F.3d 619 , 623 (7th C ir. 2007). The re m ain i ng ar gum ents ar e s i m i l ar l y unava i l i ng. T he pet iti one rs con test th e d en ialof th eir requ est for a c o nt i nu a nc e o f the he a r i ng, a s s e r t i ng tha t i t de ni ed them du e pr oce ss because thei r coun se l w as not abl e t o adequ ately de velop their case. A n im m igrati o n cou rt’s d e n i a l o fa n a l i e n ’ s r e q u e s tf o r a c o n tin u a n c e i s r e v i e wabl e forabuse o fdi scr eti on, but the pe tit ioner s hav e f ai l ed to dem onst ra te any abus e ofdi scr eti on her e. V a ho ra v . Ho lder, 626 F.3d 90 7, 9 1 5 , 919 (7th C ir. 2010); K uc a na v. Ho lder, 13 0 S

. Ct. 82 7, 83 9- 40 ( 20 10 )

. To the e xt en t that they ar e cl ai m i ng a du e pr oce ss vi ol ati on, they f ai l f or the a dd i ti onalr eas on that they ha ve not adequatel y a l l ege d p rej ud ice from the d en ialof th e c ont inu an ce. Eve n be fore thi s cour t, they sti l l have not i denti fi ed w hat e vi dence they h op ed to ob ta inby t h at c on tin u an c e. A d u e p ro c es s c laim ca nno t su cc ee d abs en t co nc r et e evide nc e th atthe due p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n h a d th e p o t e n t i a l t o af f e c tth e o u t c o me o fth e h ea rin g. Am b at iv. Re no , 2 3 3 F

. 3 d 1 0 5 4 , 1 0 6 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0)

. W he r e a pet i ti one r do es no t “s etf o r tha ny evi dence thatwould have been p re sente d orar gum ents that w oul d have be en m ade had hi s co unselbee n gi ven10 N os. 10

- 1100 & 10

- 1101 add i ti onalti m e t o prepar e hi s ca se,” th e pet i ti onerhas f ai l ed to de mon s t r a t e tha t the a l l ege d vi ol ati on po te nt i al l y i m pac te d t he o ut co m e o fthe he ar i ng, a nd th er efo re th e d u e p ro c es s c laim m u st be rejec te d

. Id. at 10 62 ; K u c i e mb a v . INS , 92 F .3d 49 6, 50 1 (7 th C ir.19 96 .) M or eo ve r, th e p et itio n er s c om p lain of th e d en ial of t h eir m ot ion to r e m a n d , b u t a ga in fail to alleg e w ith an y s p ec ifi ci ty w hat e vi dence co uld have been obt ai ned on that re m and. The affi davi ts i n supp or t o fthatm oti on a pp ear to es ta b lish atbe s t t h at th e g ov er n m en t o f L ith u an ia i s uns tabl e an d do es l i tt l e to pr o tecti ts c i ti ze ns , b ut that h elp s the peti ti oner s o nl y i fthe acti ons aga i nst them by the pri vate actor

— Rei ka

— w er e o n acco unt ofo ne o f the fi ve prot ecte d gro und s. They hav e fai l ed to ev en ar gue that. The pote n ti alforpri vate vi ol ence base d on perso nal gr ud ges , and the inabi l i ty ofa countr y t o p ro te c t it s c itiz en s fro m su c h u n law fu ln es s, is n ota b as is f oras yl um . A s we note d, th e gov er nm ent c oul d have avo i ded thi s r esul t byse eking an “S- vi sa ” on behal fo f th e pet i ti o ne r s, b uti t di d no t do s o. T he a sy l um a nd w i thhol ding ofr em ova l lim i tat i ons hand cuffo ur abi l i ty to p ro vid e a n y re lief h er e. T h e d ec isio n of th e IJ an d B IA i s A FFI RMED
.

9- 26- 11