Source: http://openjurist.org/380/f3d/1114
Timestamp: 2016-05-27 00:42:50
Document Index: 609243315

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 242', '§ 1252', '§ 1158', '§ 208', '§ 1003', '§ 1158', '§ 208', '§ 208', '§ 208', '§ 208']

380 F3d 1114 Hasan v. Ashcroft | OpenJurist
380 F. 3d 1114 - Hasan v. Ashcroft HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series380 F.3d
380 F3d 1114 Hasan v. Ashcroft 380 F.3d 1114
Afroza HASAN; Khandker Nazmul Hasan, Petitioners,v.John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-73867.
Carlos Cruz (argued), Los Angeles, CA, for the petitioners.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") § 242(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We find that substantial evidence supported the IJ's conclusion that the Hasans had not established eligibility for CAT relief. However, the IJ erred in concluding that the Hasans had not established that their past persecution was on account of political opinion. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and reverse and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The following facts are drawn from the Hasans' testimony at their asylum hearing, as well as their written application for asylum. Because the IJ did not make an adverse credibility finding, we accept the Hasans' testimony as true. See Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1086 n. 2 (9th Cir.2004).
A. The Hasans' Experiences in Bangladesh
The Hasans entered the United States with visitor visas and overstayed their six-month authorized stay. In March 2000, the Immigration and Naturalization Service initiated removal proceedings. The Hasans conceded removability and applied for asylum and withholding of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) and 1231(b)(3), and withholding of removal under CAT pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c) and 208.18.
B. The Asylum Hearing
Khandker testified that the Chairman can change political parties at will, and that his local power is not tied to what party happens to be in control of the national government. Khandker also testified that they could not safely live in another part of the country because, "[The Chairman] has maintenance of groups not only his locality. He has (indiscernible) in lot of places, they deal with drugs. Also, he controlling those places, the criminals and police administration."
We review the BIA's decision on whether the petitioner has established eligibility for asylum under the substantial evidence standard. Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir.1998). This requires that we may only reverse the BIA's decision if "Petitioner presented evidence `so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find' that Petitioner has not established eligibility for asylum." Id. (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)). Here, because the BIA issued no opinion, we review the IJ's decision as the final agency determination. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(iii);3 see also Falcon Carriche, 350 F.3d at 849.
The IJ concluded that the Hasans were not eligible for asylum because, although they established past persecution, she found that they had failed to establish that the persecution was on account of any of the statutory grounds. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1) and 1101(a)(42)(A). This conclusion runs counter to both the evidence in the record and our caselaw regarding what constitutes persecution on account of political opinion.
In Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir.2000), we addressed the question of whether retaliation for the act of publicizing corruption amounts to persecution on account of a political opinion. In Grava, the petitioner was a law enforcement officer in the Bureau of Customs in the Philippines, who experienced persecution after he exposed smuggling schemes within the Bureau. We held that,
Like Grava's act of whistleblowing, Afroza's article was a political statement despite the fact that she did not espouse a political theory. The text of the article provided in the record reveals that, contrary to the IJ's characterization, Afroza did more than call the Chairman a "crook." She accused him of organizing a cadre of "terrorism, repression, and extortion," of "misappropriation of public money," of "collect[ing] tolls for his own while giving hookup connection[s] for water and gas lines," and of making his political office "an office of corruption." These are indisputably political issues.
In Grava, we emphasized that "the salient question" in determining whether the act of whistleblowing is political is whether it was "directed toward a governing institution, or only against individuals whose corruption was aberrational." Id. The government attempts to distinguish this case from Grava by arguing that the corrupt practices of the Chairman are properly characterized as "aberrational." This argument is undermined by the text of the article itself, which is filled with references to the systemic nature of the Chairman's corruption. In her analysis of the article, the IJ failed to consider such statements as, "Police and other members of the law and order enforcement department [are] indifferent to [the Chairman's cadre]," the Chairman "openly says that he has effective influence over ministers and high command of the government," and "River police overlook[] these [smuggling] activities."
When a powerful political leader uses his political office as a means to siphon public money for personal use, and uses political connections throughout a wide swath of government agencies, both to facilitate and to protect his illicit operations, exposure of his corruption is inherently political. See, e.g., Reyes-Guerrero v. INS, 192 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that an investigation into white collar crimes committed by politicians in Colombia, where the criminal justice and political systems are closely intertwined, is, "by its very nature, political"); Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723, 727-28 (9th Cir.1988) (noting the substantial evidence in the record that the Haitian government operated as a "`kleptocracy,' or government by thievery, from the highest to the lowest level," and concluding that persecution due to "Desir's refusal to accede to extortion in a political system founded on extortion" was motivated by political rather than personal interests); cf. Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that a letter to a ship's captain, accusing him of corruption, was not a political opinion, since the letter was an "apolitical accusation," threatening the "minikleptocracy of the captain of his ship") (internal quotation marks omitted).
2. Internal Relocation
This finding is not an adequate basis upon which to affirm the IJ's decision on the question of asylum eligibility. For one thing, "this court cannot affirm the BIA on a ground upon which it did not rely." Ernesto Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 n. 16 (9th Cir.2000). The IJ — whose decision represents the BIA's final determination — did not rely on the possibility of relocation in making her decision to deny the Hasans' requests for asylum and withholding of removal.
Furthermore, the legal standard for considering the possibility of relocation is different in the context of a CAT claim than in an asylum claim. Cf. Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir.2001). Under CAT, the burden is on the applicant to show that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured, and one of the relevant considerations is the possibility of relocation. 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2) and 208.16(c)(3)(ii). In contrast, in the asylum context, once the petitioner has established past persecution on account of an enumerated ground, the burden is on the government to prove that the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the country and that it would be reasonable to expect her to do so. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3)(ii).
Adequate consideration of whether or not the government has met this burden requires far more than the IJ's one sentence comment and the sparse evidence in the record regarding the possibility of internal relocation. The only relevant evidence in the record was Khandker's testimony, quoted above, in which he said that the Chairman's criminal and police connections in other localities made it unsafe for him and Afroza to return, even if they relocated. The government presented no evidence to the contrary; it simply asserted the possibility of relocation in a single sentence in closing argument. The extent of the government's evidence in this area is particularly weak given the significant showing required to demonstrate the reasonableness of internal relocation. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir.2003) (discussing the regulations governing asylum, which list some of the factors the IJ should consider when evaluating the reasonableness of internal relocation, including, "whether the applicant would face other serious harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the country; administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social and familial ties") (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3) (2001)).
Accordingly, we find that the IJ's discussion of internal relocation did not address the Hasans' asylum claim. Therefore, we remand the case in order for the BIA to consider whether the government met its burden of proof on the questions of changed circumstances and internal relocation. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002).
B. The CAT Claim
We agree with two of the IJ's reasons for finding that the Hasans had failed to meet their burden of proof. First, there was no substantial evidence offered that the future persecution the Hasans would experience would rise to the level of torture. Second, the Hasans have not presented substantial grounds for believing that they would be unable to live elsewhere in the country safely. As previously discussed, in the CAT context, unlike asylum, the petitioners have the burden of presenting evidence to show that internal relocation is not a possibility. 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2) and 208.16(c)(3)(ii). The only evidence the Hasans presented on this question was Khandker's brief testimony in response to the government's questioning. Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supported the IJ's decision to deny CAT relief.4
In addition to challenging the IJ's asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT determinations, the Hasans also raise a due process challenge to the BIA's use of streamlining procedures. This argument has been foreclosed byFalcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848 (9th Cir.2003).
PrintEmail Short URL: HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series380 F.3d