Source: http://openjurist.org/443/f3d/310/toure-v-attorney-general-of-united-states
Timestamp: 2015-03-31 12:55:58
Document Index: 328719722

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1252', '§ 1252', '§ 1101', '§ 1158', '§ 1101', '§ 208', '§ 208']

443 F3d 310 Toure v. Attorney General of United States | OpenJurist
443 F. 3d 310 - Toure v. Attorney General of United States	Home443 f3d 310 toure v. attorney general of united states
443 F3d 310 Toure v. Attorney General of United States 443 F.3d 310
Seydou TOURE Petitionerv.ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES Respondent.
No. 05-1746.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 9, 2006.
Francois-Ihor Mazur, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Curtis C. Pett, United States Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D.C., Peter D. Keisler, Douglas E. Ginsburg, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Numerous human rights violations are alleged to have been committed in the suppression of the riots and rebellion. The State Department Report states that both "[s]ecurity and rebel forces committed numerous human rights abuses." (App. at 156.) A report by Human Rights Watch states that the Ivoirian government's response to the rebellion "has not been restricted to legitimate security measures, but has rather tended, at minimum, to exacerbate existing divisions in Ivoirian society and, at worst, to promote or cause human rights abuses.... In many cases government security forces have carried out or tolerated human rights violations by others ... against individuals who are considered sympathetic to the rebellion simply by their ethnicity or religion." (App. at 162.) The State Department Report also observes that there have been "major divisions within the military based on ethnic, religious, and political loyalties." (App. at 165.)
According to Toure's testimony, three distinct acts of persecution were perpetrated against him and his family.2 First, in February 1998, after being discovered reading an opposition newspaper while at work, he spent 15 days in a military prison, after which he returned to military duties. He testified that he was not beaten and that such detentions were a common form of punishment when an officer violates a military rule.
Third, at least with respect to the ransacking of the home, the IJ questioned whether the persecution was by the government or forces that the government could control. Because Toure is relatively wealthy, the IJ speculated that it may have just been an ordinary burglary: "It is possible that some individuals came to his home and ransacked his home because of the valuables contained therein, not because of any political opinion imputed to the respondent or his wife." (App. at 66-67.) Fourth, the IJ found that Toure's reason for not wanting to return to Cote d'Ivoire is that he will be imprisoned and court-martialed for deserting the military. The IJ concluded that because prosecution under generally applicable laws does not constitute persecution, Toure's claim necessarily fails.
Finally, although the IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility finding, she found it "inconceivable" that Toure would be allowed to maintain his position in the military and travel both nationally and internationally if he were suspected of being an opposition sympathizer.
The IJ then concluded that Toure's failure to prove his eligibility for asylum necessarily meant that he failed to satisfy the more onerous burdens of proving entitlement to withholding of removal or relief under CAT. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision without opinion.
We have jurisdiction over this petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, which grants federal courts of appeals jurisdiction to review final orders of the BIA. When the BIA summarily affirms the IJ's decision, the decision we review is that of the IJ. Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 245 (3d Cir.2003) (en banc). We review an IJ's factual findings, including his or her determination of whether an alien was subject to persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution, under the substantial evidence standard. See, e.g., Shardar v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 318, 323 (3d Cir. 2004).
Although substantial evidence review is deferential — under which we may reverse only if "`[a] reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,'" Shardar, 382 F.3d at 323 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)) — "that deference is expressly conditioned on support in the record, and deference is not due where findings and conclusions are based on inferences or presumptions that are not reasonably grounded in the record." Dia, 353 F.3d at 249; see also Caushi v. Att'y Gen., 436 F.3d 220, 226 (3d Cir.2006) (same). An IJ must support her factual determinations with "specific, cogent" reasons such that her conclusions "flow in a reasoned way from the evidence of record and are [not] arbitrary and conjectural in nature." Dia, 353 F.3d at 250. Failure to do so "does not pass muster under the substantial evidence rubric." Id. at 254 (discussing Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123 (3d Cir.2003)).
The legal precepts underlying Toure's claim are well established. The Attorney General has the discretionary power to grant asylum to an alien who qualifies as a refugee within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A refugee is "any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality ... and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion[.]" 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
To establish eligibility for asylum based on past persecution, as Toure seeks to do here, an asylum applicant must show: "(1) one or more incidents rising to the level of persecution; (2) that is `on account of' one of the statutorily-protected grounds; and (3) is committed either by the government or by forces that the government is either unable or unwilling to control." Mulanga, 349 F.3d at 132 (citing Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir.2002)). A showing of past persecution gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1); Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 592 (3d Cir. 2003). "That presumption can be rebutted if the INS establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant could reasonably avoid persecution by relocating to another part of his or her country or that conditions in the applicant's country have changed so as to make his or her fear no longer reasonable." Mulanga, 349 F.3d at 132 (citations omitted).
Asylum applications also constitute simultaneous applications for mandatory withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.3(b). To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show a "clear probability" that his or her life or freedom would be threatened if he or she is deported. Lin v. INS, 238 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir.2001) (citing Chang, 119 F.3d at 1066). "The question under that standard is whether it is more likely than not that the alien would be subject to persecution." INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984). The standard for eligibility for withholding of removal is more exacting than the asylum standard. See Chang, 119 F.3d at 1066. "Thus, if an alien fails to e