# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 32 46

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Hazre t Nan ic ; J as m in ka Nani c,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

s ,

v.

Lore tt a E. Ly

nc h, 1

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 9, 2 01 4 Fil ed : J ul y

20 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Hazre t Nan ic an d hi s wife

, Ja sm in ka Nan ic

, na ti ve s of th e fo rm er Yug os la vi a,

pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w of a de ci si on of th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s de nyin g th ei r

ap pl ic at io ns fo r as y lu m an d wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. W e co nc lu de th at th e Bo ard ’s

Lore tt a E. Ly

nc h is au to m at ic al ly su bs ti tu te d fo r Eric H. Hol de r, Jr

., pu rs ua nt 1

to Fed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro ced ur e 4 3( c)(2 ).d e c i s i on was su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, an d th at th e pe ti ti on ers were

acco rd ed du e p ro ces s, s o we d en y th e p et it io n.

Hazre t Nan ic , wh om we wil l cal l Nan ic , wa s bo rn i n B o s n i a an d is cu rren tl y

a ci ti zen of Bo sn ia

- H e r z e g o v i n a an d Cro at ia

. He is a pr act ic in g Mu sl im

, bu t he reject s th e “ Bo sn ia k” la be l us ed by g ov ern m en ts in th e reg i o n to de sc rib e Mu sl im s
in Bo sn ia . Nani c ad vo cat es a un ifi ed Bo sn ia an d i de nt ifi es hi m se lf a s B os ni an

.

Nan ic an d hi s wife en te red th e Uni te d St at es in Nov em b e r 20 06 as

no ni m m ig ran t vi si to rs fro m Bo sn ia -Herz eg o vi na

. The y were au th or iz ed to rem ai n
in th e Uni te d St at es un ti l Ju ne 8, 20 07

. On Ju ne 13

, 20 07

, Nan ic ap pl ie d fo r as y lu m

an d wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

, na m in g hi s wife on th e ap pl ic at io n as a de r i v a t i ve
be ne fic ia ry

. The Dep art m en t of Hom el an d Secu rit y de ni ed Nan ic ’s ap pl ic at io n an d

is su ed no ti ces to ap pe ar, ch arg in g th at th e Nan ic s were rem ov ab le for rem ai ni ng in

th e Uni te d S ta te s af

te r ex pi rat io n o f th ei r vi sa s.

To q ua li fy fo r as y lu m , an al ie n m us t sh ow th at he is un ab le or un wil li n g t o

ret ur n to hi s co un try of or ig in be cau se of pe rs ecu ti on or a w e l l

- fo un de d fear of

pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of race , rel ig io n, na ti on al it y , m em be rs hi p in a pa rticul ar soc ia l

gr ou p, or po li ti cal op in io n. 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 (b )(1 )(A), 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A). If an al ie n

es ta bl is he s pa st pe rs ecu ti on , th en th ere is a pr es um pt io n of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on

. Oth erwi se , th e al ie n m

us t de m on st rat e a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on th at

is su bjec ti ve ly ge nu in e an d ob je c ti ve ly reas on ab le

. INS v. Ca rd oz a- Fon se ca , 48 0

U.S. 42 1, 4 40 (19 87 ); Has sa n v . Ash cr of t , 38 8 F .3d 66 1, 6 66 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

An im m ig rat io n jud ge de ni ed rel ie f aft er an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , an d th e Bo ard

affi rm ed

. The Bo ard co nc lu de d th at Nan ic di d no t de m on st rat e th at he su ffer ed pa st

pe rs ecu ti on in Bo sn ia -Herz eg ov in a or in Cro at ia

, an d th at he di d no t es ta bl is h a well

fo un de d fear of pe rs ecu ti on if he were ret ur ne d to hi s ho m e co un try. The Bo ard al so reject ed Nan ic ’s co nt en ti on th at th e im m ig rat io n jud ge de pr iv ed Nan ic of du e pr oc es s

-2

-by rece iv in g te st im on y of an ex pe rt wit ne ss ab ou t co un try co nd it io ns an d co ns id eri ng

a do cu m en t pr ep ared by an as y lu m of fi c e r w ho in te rv ie wed Nan ic

. Bec au se th e

st an da rd of pr oo f fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al is m or e de m an di ng th an th e req ui rem en t

fo r as y lu m , th e Bo ard als o d en ie d Nan ic ’s app li cat io n fo r wit hh ol di ng

.

W e rev ie w th e Bo ard ’s de ci si on fo r su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, an d we m us t up ho ld

ad m in is tra ti ve fin di ng s of fact un le ss an y reas on ab le ad jud ic at or wou ld be co m

pe ll ed

to co nc lu de to th e co nt rary. 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (b ) ( 4 ) (B); INS v. Eli as -Za ca ri as , 50 2

U.S. 47 8, 48 1 & n.1 (1 99 2)

. W e rev ie w th e Bo ard ’s de ci si on s on co ns ti tu ti on al

qu es ti on s de no vo

.

To su pp or t hi s cl ai m of p a s t p ers ecu ti on , Nan ic pr es en te d ev id en ce ab ou t

in ci de nt s th at oc cu rred in hi s ho m el an d. He te st ifi ed th at in 19 94

, du rin g th e he ig ht

o f th e ci vi l war in th e Bal ka ns , he an d hi s br ot he r Osm an were st op p e d b y t h e
Cro at ia n po li ce at a ch eck po in t. W he n t h e p ol ic e as ke d hi s na ti on al it y , Nan ic

res po nd ed “ Bo sn ia n,” an d th e po li ce pu ll ed hi m ou t of th e car an d st art ed to be at hi m

. His br ot he r sp ok e to th e of fic ers an d as ke d th em

to st op

. The of

fic ers rel en te d an d

to ld N a ni c th at bu t fo r hi s br ot he r, he wou ld be de ad

. In May 19 95

, Nan ic was

st op pe d by th e Cro at ia n po li ce a se co nd ti m e whe n he was dr iv in g in a co nv oy to

de li ve r hu m an it ari an su pp li es

. The po li ce hi t hi m two or th ree ti m es in th e face an d

to ok hi m fo r qu es ti on in g. He was in te rro ga te d an d th reat en ed wit h vi ol en ce, bu t he

was no t ha rm ed

, an d he was rel eas ed aft er ap pr ox im at el y twen ty-fou r ho ur s. Nan ic

al so rep or te d th at hi s da ug ht ers were ha ras se d at sc ho ol in Cro at ia du r i n g 1 9 9 6 or
19 97 aft er Nan ic refu se d to id en ti fy th em as Cro at s or Bo sn ia ks an d in si st ed th at th ey
were Bo sn ia ns

.

The Bo ard fo un d th at th es e in ci de nt s were in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h p as t

p e r s e c ut io n, be cau se m in or be at in gs an d lo w le ve l ha ras sm en t do no t am ou nt t o

pe rs ecu ti on

. A reas on ab le ad jud ic at or co ul d reac h th at co nc lu si on

. “ [B]rief pe rio ds

of de te nt io n do no t nece ss ari ly co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on ,” an d “ [t]he m ere pre se nc e of

-3

-s o me p h y si cal ha rm do es no t req ui re a fin di ng of pa st pe rs ecu ti on .” Ng ur e v.

Ash cr of t
, 36 7 F.3 d 97 5, 99 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Pers ecu ti on al so “ do es no t in cl ud e lo wle ve l in ti m id at io n an d ha ras sm en t.” Mal on ga v. Muk as ey , 54 6 F.3 d 54 6, 55 2 (8 th Ci r.
20 08 ). W e ha ve up he ld th e de ni al of a sylum cla im s i nv ol vi ng m or e se rio us ab us es
th an th os e cl ai m ed by Nan ic

. E.g., Al Ta wm v. Ash cr of t
, 36 3 F.3 d 74 0, 74 3 (8 th Ci r.
20 04 ); Eus eb io v. Ash cr of t , 36 1 F .3d 10 88 , 10 90 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

Nan ic co nt en ds th at th e Bo ard fai le d to co ns id er ot he r ev id en ce th at su pp or te d

a fin di ng of

pa st pe rs ecu ti on . He says th at pe op le fo ll owe d hi m in Bo sn ia

, an d th at

memb e rs of th e se cret po li ce cam e to hi s ho m e an d in te rro ga te d hi m on se ve ral

oc cas io ns

. Bu t Na n i c w a s u n a bl e to id en ti fy who fo ll owe d hi m , an d he ex pl ai ne d

on ly th at se cret po li ce qu es ti on ed hi m ab ou t pe op le un kn own to hi m an d de m an de d

to kn ow ab ou t hi s wor k wit h th e hu m an it ari an or ga ni zat io ns

. Thi s in fo rm at io n do es

no t ad d m at eri al ly to t he in ci de nt s di sc us se d by t he Bo ard , a nd ad di ti on al ev id en ce
of al le ge d har as sm en t do es no t co m pe l a f in di ng of p as t p ers ecu ti on

. Nan ic fu rth er

co m pl ai ns th at th e go ve rn m en ts of Bo sn ia -Herz eg ov in a an d Cro at ia refu se to le t hi m
id en ti fy as a “ Bo sn ia n,” as op po se d to Serb

, C r o a t, or Bo sn ia k, bu t th is al le ge d

in te rfer en ce wi th Nani c’s se ns e o f se lf- id en ti ty do es no t ris e to th e ex tre m e le ve l o f

go ve rn m en t ac ti on req ui red to est ab li sh pe rs ecu ti on

.

Nan ic arg ue s th at e v e n w i t h o ut a fin di ng of pa st pe rs ecu ti on , he ha s a well

fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on if ret u r n e d to hi s ho m e co un try. He ci te s hi s
in ab il it y t o e x pr es s hi s na ti on al it y as Bo sn ia n an d fear th at he wou ld be ha rm ed by

po li ti cal en em ie s wh o d is ag ree with hi s des ire fo r a un ifi ed Bo sn ia

. Nani c te st ifi ed

th a t a f r i en d warn ed hi m to ceas e de cl ari ng hi m se lf as Bo sn ia n, an d an ot he r fri en d

to ld hi m t h a t i f he co nt in ue d to id en ti fy as Bo sn ia n, th en he wou ld be “ li qu id at ed

ov ern ig ht .” He bo ls te rs hi s arg um en t wit h cl ai m s th at hi s br ot he r Izet was m ur de red

an d th at a li ke -m in de d fri en d na m ed Dr. Ljub ijan ki c was ki ll ed be cau se of h i s

po li ti cal vi ews

.

-4

-The Bo ard de te rm in ed th at Nan ic ha d no well -fo un de d fear of pe rs ecu ti on , an d

th is co nc lu si on was su pp or te d by su bs t a n t i a l ev id en ce. The Bo ard up he ld th e
im m ig rat io n jud ge ’s fin di ng th at Nan ic ’s br ot he r an d D r

. Ljub ijan ki c were ki ll ed

du rin g m il it ary act i o n in th e ci vi l war. Giv en th e te st im on y of hi st or ia n Mi ch ael

Mac Que en ab ou t th e br ot he r’s de at h an d co nt em po ran eo us ne ws acco un ts reg ard in g
th e d em is e o f Dr. Ljub ijan ki c, a reas on ab le ad jud ic at or was no t co m

pe ll ed to reac h

a co nt rary con cl us io n o n t ha t p oi nt

.

Nan ic ’s te st im on y ab ou t warn in gs fro m un id en ti fie d fri en ds was to o va gu e to

co m pe l a fin di ng th at he ha d a well -fo un de d fear t h a t i s ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

,

es pe ci al ly whe n m em

be rs of hi s fam il y co nt in ue to li ve i n B o s n i a -Herz eg ov in a
wit ho ut ha rm , an d Nan ic hi m se lf ret ur ne d to th e co un try se ve ral ti m es s in ce 20 00

aft er fo rei gn tra ve l wit ho ut ex pe rie nc in g pe r s e c u t i o n

. The Bo ard rel ie d on th e

te st im on y of hi st or ia n Mac Que en to fin d th at Nan ic ’s se lf- id en ti fic at io n as Bo sn ia n
di d no t su pp or t a well -fo un de d fear

. Mac Que en op in ed th a t a “goo d ch un k” of

Bo sn ia n so ci et y st il l ad he res to th e vi ew th at th ey are “ ba si cal ly Bo sn ia ns ,” an d th at

Bo sn ia is a “ rel at iv el y pe acef ul pl ace al th ou gh po or .” He sa w no reas on why Nan ic

co ul d no t retu rn to hi s pr ev io us pr of es si on

. Mac Que en ’s te st im on y was su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f th e Bo ard ’s con cl us io n.

Nan ic res po nd s th at th e Bo ard vi ol at ed hi s d ue pro ces s ri gh t t o a fai r he ari ng by co ns id eri ng Mac Que en ’s te st im on y , be cau se th e Dep art m en t fai le d to id en ti fy

Mac Que en as a wit ne ss at le as t fif te en da y s in ad va nc e of th e he ari ng , as req ui red by

Ch ap te r 3.1 (b )(i i)( A) an d 4.1 6( b) (ii ) of th e Im m ig rat io n Co ur t Prac ti ce Man ua l. Bu t

be cau se Mac Que en ’s te st im on y was o f f e r e d so le ly to reb ut Nan ic ’s te st im on y an d

affi da vi t, the fif

te en -d ay rul e li ke ly did no t ap pl y

. Cf . Nya ma v. As hc ro

ft

, 35 7 F.3d

81 2, 81 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). In an y ev en t, th e Dep art m en t m ov ed to ad m it Mac Que en ’s

te s t i mo n y at a Ju ne 20 11 he ari ng , bu t Mac Que en di d no t act ua ll y te st ify un ti l a
Ja nu ary 20 12 h e a r i n g, so Nan ic ha d m or e th an si x m on th s’ no ti ce. The re was no

un fai r su rp ris e.

-5

-Nan ic al so co m pl ai ns ab ou t th e im

m ig rat io n jud ge ’s c o n s i de rat io n of an
“As s e ss m en t to Refe r”— a do cu m en t pr ep ared by an as y lu m of fic er ba se d on an
in te rv ie w wit h Nan i c

— b e c a us e th e as y lu m of fic er fo un d th at Nan ic la ck ed

cred ib il it y . Nani c sa y s th e as se ss m en t was un rel ia bl e ev id en ce. We agre e wit h t he

Bo ard th at Nan ic wa s n o t p r e ju di ced by an y erro r in co ns id eri ng th e as se ss m en t,

be cau se th e im m ig rat io n jud ge al s o rece iv ed ev id en ce th at un de rm in ed th e as y lu m
of fic er’s co nc lu si on on cred ib il it y , an d th e jud ge fo un d in de pe nd en tl y th at Nan ic was

a cre di bl e wit ne ss

.

The pe ti ti on for rev ie w is de ni ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-