Source: https://m.openjurist.org/362/f3d/1247/vukmirovic-v-ashcroft
Timestamp: 2020-01-28 14:34:00
Document Index: 92262928

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1003', '§ 1105', '§ 1101', '§ 1231', '§ 1251', '§ 208', '§ 1003', '§ 701']

362 F3d 1247 Vukmirovic v. Ashcroft | OpenJurist
362 F. 3d 1247 - Vukmirovic v. Ashcroft
362 F3d 1247 Vukmirovic v. Ashcroft
362 F.3d 1247
Predrag VUKMIROVIC, Petitioner,
No. 02-72110.
Louis A. Gordon and David Gardner; Los Angeles, CA; D. Jade Mundel, Law Offices of Marks & Acalin, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; attorneys for the petitioner.
Mr. Vukmirovic, I'm going to have to proceed with the case. I'm going to have to deny your application for asylum. I'm going to deny your request for voluntary departure, because the Service object[s] to that. And I will indicate to you the reasons why. And I will have to order you deported.
The IJ then concluded that Vukmirovic had "engaged in persecution of others on the basis of race and religion" and was thus "barred from receiving asylum under section 101(A)(42)(B) of the Act." The IJ denied the motion to reopen because Vukmirovic had not complied with Matter of Lozada, but did not address the relief Vukmirovic sought under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") summarily affirmed the IJ's decision under streamlining regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7).
Because removal proceedings against Vukmirovic were pending before April 1997, and the BIA issued its final decision after October 1996, we apply the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009. Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We therefore have jurisdiction over the asylum claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. Under IIRIRA's transitional rules, we have jurisdiction to consider Vukmirovic's challenges to the denial of his motion to reopen. Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir.2002).
Because the BIA adopted the decision of the IJ as the final agency determination of the case, we review the IJ's decision. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851(9th Cir.2003); Alaelua v. INS, 45 F.3d 1379, 1381-82 (9th Cir.1995). We review the decision for "substantial evidence." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). The agency's decision that an applicant is ineligible for asylum can only be reversed where "a reasonable fact-finder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed." Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2000)). However, we must grant a petition for review and, in an appropriate case, remand a case for further consideration when the denial of asylum was based on an error of law. Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir.1994). We accept the petitioner's testimony as true when, as here, the IJ found him to be credible. Halaim v. INS, 358 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir.2004).
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). If a person qualifies as a "persecutor" under this section, he or she is also barred from withholding of removal relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B).
Although we have not considered this provision previously, we have interpreted a similar provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(19), that provided for deportation of individuals who assisted in persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion while under the direction of the Nazi government of Germany or its affiliates. See Laipenieks v. INS, 750 F.2d 1427, 1429 (9th Cir.1985). In Laipenieks, we relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 495, 101 S.Ct. 737, 66 L.Ed.2d 686 (1981), for guidance in interpreting the contours of this exception. Other Circuits have also relied upon Fedorenko for interpretative guidance on provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act pertaining to persecution of others. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Reno, 258 F.3d 806, 811-12 (8th Cir.2001).
449 U.S. at 512 n. 34, 101 S.Ct. 737.
Second, the IJ erred by holding as a matter of law that "there is no provision under the law that exempts acts of self-defense from qualifying as persecution." This construction of the statute is untenable on its face. As a textual matter, holding that acts of true self-defense qualify as persecution would run afoul of the "on account of" requirement in the provision. It would also be contrary to the purpose of the statute. It would deny asylum to any victim of oppression who had the temerity to resist persecution by fighting back. The right of self-defense is one of the most ancient in Anglo-American law. As the English poet John Dryden observed, "[S]elf-defense is nature's eldest law." Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel, I (1682). William Blackstone described self-defense as one of the "absolute rights of the individual." 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *126. In another context, the BIA has also quite appropriately referred to "self-defense and self-preservation" as some "of the most elemental characteristics of the human species." In the Matter of E____, 2 I. & N. Dec. 134, 165 (BIA 1944).
The IJ also erred in denying the motion to reopen. The IJ neglected to address Vukmirovic's motion to reopen for relief under the Convention Against Torture, despite ordering him deported. Although the petitioner would be ineligible for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture if found to be a persecutor, he might still be eligible for deferral of removal, 8 C.F.R. § 208.17. The IJ abused his discretion in not addressing the motion to reopen, Yepes-Prado v. INS, 10 F.3d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir.1993), and "we cannot assume that the [agency] considered factors that it failed to mention," id. Given this, we need not address Vukmirovic's contention that the IJ improperly rejected Vukmirovic's ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Vukmirovic challenges the BIA's summary affirmance under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) as a violation of due process, as well as a violation of the BIA's own regulations governing streamlining. The due process challenge to streamlining is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche, 350 F.3d at 852. Contrary to the government's assertion, we have jurisdiction over Vukmirovic's regulatory challenge to streamlining in his case under Falcon Carriche, 350 F.3d at 852-53 ("Although we agree with the government's ultimate conclusion, we do not embrace the government's argument that the streamlining decision is inherently discretionary. Indeed, portions of the streamlining decision are non-discretionary determinations that we would ordinarily have jurisdiction to review."). Falcon Carriche rejected the argument made by the government that streamlining is beyond judicial review under Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), and section 701 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which precludes judicial review of agency action "committed to agency discretion by law." 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). However, we need not reach the question of whether the regulations were violated in this case because it is moot, as we are granting the petition for review.