United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued June 11, 2008

Decided June 26, 2008

Before

    DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

    ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

    JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 07‐2693

BOUKHEMIS AMIOUR,

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. A77 656 334

O R D E R

Boukhemis Amiour, a native and citizen of Algeria, entered the United States on a

tourist visa in 1987 and has lived in this country ever since.  In 2003 the Attorney General

began removal proceedings against him.  Amiour conceded that he was subject to removal

but, as relevant here, applied for withholding of removal.  An immigration judge denied

relief on the ground that Amiour had failed to establish that he more likely than not would

be persecuted if he is returned to Algeria, but granted Amiour voluntary departure.  The

Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ’s decision.  Amiour now petitions for review.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 07‐2693 Page 2

Because the administrative record does not compel a finding that Amiour would more

likely than not face persecution if returned to Algeria, we deny his petition for review.

  

In September 1987, Amiour, who is now 57 years old, legally entered the United

States at Port Huron, Michigan, with a six‐month tourist visa.  In January 2003 he was

charged under INA § 237(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), with overstaying his visa.

Amiour conceded removability but requested withholding of removal under INA

§ 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Amiour was the only witness at his merits hearing in February 2006.  He testified

that he was born in Sidi Abdelaziz, Algeria, in 1951, but lived in Souk Ahras, a town of

about 150,000 near the border with Tunisia.  He left school to work in the family bakery

when he was about 18 years old and continued to work in the bakery until he left Algeria

for the United States in 1987.

Amiour testified that he left Algeria because of his pro‐Western political views.  The

Algerian government maintained close ties to the Soviet Union from the time the country

gained independence in 1962 through at least 1987 when Amiour left, but Amiour conceded

that he was not involved politically before he departed and had never encountered

problems with governmental authorities.  Nor did he return to Algeria after the collapse of

the Soviet Union.  Amiour explained that he feared “Islamic fundamentalists” who targeted

“anybody” espousing pro‐Western or pro‐democracy views during the civil war of the

1990s.  Amiour suggested that Islamic factions killed or tortured those who opposed them.

Two of his cousins, he said, were killed by “Islamic terrorists.”  One cousin was killed in

1993 because he was pro‐Western and refused to pay “Islamic fundamentalists” who tried

to extort money from him.  The other cousin, a junior officer in the Algerian army, was

killed by Islamic terrorists in 1995.

Amiour did not acknowledge, however, that the civil war had ended before he

received his Notice to Appear in 2003.  His mother, brother, and three sisters still live in

Algeria.  None of them has been harmed by Islamic terrorists or the Algerian government.

And although he speaks with family members once every two weeks, Amiour did not

appear to be current on political developments in Algeria, such as when the current

president was last elected.  When asked, Amiour could not give a specific reason why he

would be unsafe in Algeria (other than his assertion that no pro‐Western resident is safe),

and he conceded that the conditions there had improved significantly since he left in 1987.

He also conceded that there are many pro‐Western people in Algeria, especially those in

contact with the French, who play a major role in the Algerian economy.
No. 07‐2693 Page 3

In addition to his testimony, Amiour submitted an affidavit from Jamal Nassar, a

professor at Illinois State University.  Nasser states in his undated affidavit that he has done

“extensive studies and research in Middle East politics and international relations and

terrorism.”  He notes that since 1992 there has been armed conflict between the Algerian

government and Islamic fundamentalists, which has resulted in over 100,000 deaths, and

that the Islamic fundamentalists target pro‐Western, pro‐democracy individuals who

oppose governmental imposition of Islam.

Finally, Amiour offered the Department of State country reports on Algeria for 2002

and 2004; a Congressional Research Service report on current issues in Algeria from

February 2005; and several other publications including reports by Amnesty International,

The New York Times, and The Washington Times.

  

In denying relief the IJ credited Amiour’s testimony but concluded that his fear of

returning was not based on any facts particular to him, and that he had not shown a basis

for his claim for relief.  First, the IJ noted that Amiour’s fear is a general one.   Moreover, the

IJ found that Amiour demonstrated he was not familiar with the current country conditions,

and so his fear of Islamic militant groups is tempered by his lack of knowledge about their

current strength, particularly in light of the reports suggesting that the situation in Algeria

has improved greatly since Amiour departed.  The IJ reasoned that Amiour faces no greater

risk than other Algerians since he lacks any history of political or religious activism, has

been gone for twenty years, and has suffered no physical harm either to himself or his

immediate family.  And although the IJ evaluated the information provided by Nasser, he

did not weigh it heavily, given that Nasser’s c.v. reveals that the vast majority of his work

centers on Israeli‐Palestinian issues, rather than Algeria or even North Africa.   The IJ

granted Amiour voluntary departure, and ordered him removed in the alternative if he

failed to comply.

Amiour then appealed, and, in a memorandum order supplementing the IJ’s oral

decision, the BIA affirmed.  The BIA noted that Amiour had failed to demonstrate the

existence of any objective threat, primarily on the basis that Amiour had never suffered any

harm from anyone in Algeria before he left, and that Amiour had also failed to demonstrate

the existence of a pattern or practice of persecution of those holding pro‐Western views.

In his petition for review, Amiour contends that the IJ erred by denying his

application for withholding of removal because, he insists, his evidence established that it is

more likely than not that he will be persecuted on account of his membership in a social

group and his political opinions if he is returned to Algeria.  Amiour has abandoned his

claim to relief under the Convention Against Torture.  See Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685,

692 (7th Cir. 2008).
No. 07‐2693 Page 4

To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, the “applicant must demonstrate

a clear probability of persecution on account of his ‘race, religion, nationality, membership

in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Tariq v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 650, 656 (7th Cir.

2007) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)).  To establish a “clear probability” the petitioner

“must demonstrate that ‘it is more likely than not that [he] would be subject to persecution’

in the country to which he would be returned.”  INS v. Cardoza‐Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 423

(1987) (quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429‐30 (1984)).  “Persecution” does not include

the acts of private citizens unless the government is complicit in those acts, or is unwilling

or unable to take steps to prevent them.  Chakir v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 563, 570 (7th Cir. 2006).

We review the denial of withholding of removal under the substantial‐evidence test and

will not overturn the decisions of the immigration courts unless the evidence compels that

result.  Mabasa v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2006).

Amiour tried to establish that he more likely than not would face persecution in

Algeria by demonstrating the existence of a “pattern or practice” of persecution of similarly

situated individuals.  See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2); Mabasa, 455 F.3d at 746.  To establish

eligibility for withholding of removal based on a pattern or practice of persecution, an

applicant must show a “‘systematic, pervasive, or organized effort to kill, imprison, or

severely injure members of the protected group, and this effort must be perpetrated or

tolerated by state actors.’”  Kaharudin v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 619, 623‐24 (7th Cir. 2007)

(quoting Ahmed v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 669, 675 (7th Cir. 2006)).  See Mitreva v. Gonzales, 417

F.3d 761, 765 (7th Cir. 2005).

Amiour did not meet this burden.  He suggests that if returned to Algeria he would

face “persecution” on account of (1) his membership in a social group, which he defines as

“western‐oriented, pro‐democratic civilians of Algeria who oppose the terrorist groups

fighting for the establishment of Islamic regime,” and (2) his political opinion supporting

the Algerian “government opposing the Islamic fundamentalists.”  But the only support

Amiour provided for these contentions is that he holds those views, that he has lived in the

United States for more than 20 years, and that two of his cousins were killed by Islamic

fundamentalists.

Given that Amiour never engaged in any political activity or religious agitation prior

to leaving Algeria, and that neither he nor anyone in his immediate family has ever been

harmed, it is difficult to see how the immigration courts were wrong—let alone how the

evidence compels a conclusion that he will more likely than not face harm if he returns.

Although Amiour testified that “Islamic fundamentalists” kill and torture individuals who

support democracy and who view the West favorably, he submitted no evidence that the

Algerian government tolerates or perpetrates such violence.  Moreover, country conditions
No. 07‐2693 Page 5

have improved in recent years, and Amiour has failed to establish that Islamic

fundamentalists are currently engaged in any “systematic, pervasive, or organized effort” of

any sort.  And although Amiour asks this court to take judicial notice of recent bombings

and clashes between the army and militant groups in Algeria, these events do not suggest

that Amiour faces any greater danger than any other Algerian.  Indeed, the Algerian

government’s attempt to subdue militant groups suggests that it does not, in fact, tolerate

their actions.

We therefore DENY the petition for review.