Opinion ID: 1429945
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Past Persecution Political Opinion

Text: Ahmed contends that he suffered persecution in Bangladesh on account of his political opinion. To demonstrate past persecution on account of a political opinion, Ahmed must satisfy two requirements. First he must show that he held (or that his persecutors believed that he held) a political opinion. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir.2000). Second, he must show that his persecutors persecuted him because of his political opinion. See id. A political opinion encompasses more than electoral politics or formal political ideology or action. See e.g. Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (recognizing that an applicant's statements regarding the unfair distribution of food in Iraq resulted in the imputation of an anti-government political opinion), amended by 355 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir.2004). A political opinion can be an actual opinion held by the applicant, or an opinion imputed to him or her by the persecutor. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1488-89 (9th Cir. 1997). We find that substantial evidence does not support the IJ's finding that Ahmed failed to demonstrate past persecution. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the record compels the finding that Ahmed was targeted and persecuted on account of his political opinion.
As an initial matter, the Government contends that Ahmed cannot assert that he was persecuted on account of his political opinion because Ahmed disclaimed any political opinion other than a desire to move to Pakistan, and presented no evidence of political persecution. To support this assertion, the Government refers to Ahmed's testimony where the following exchange took place: IJ: Okay. And, what is the political opinion that you were trying to express in the rallies and in the demonstrations in '91 and '93? Ahmed: We do not have any political opinion for Bangladesh. Our only main protest was to send us to Pakistan. We, we cannot live this kind of living. We cannot live in this way, and we just want some kind of arrangement to be made by which we can be sent to Pakistan. In a similar vein, the IJ, in his oral decision, stated, In fact, there is no political opinion the Biharis have that's not shared by the Bengali government. The Biharis want to leave and the Bengalis want them to leave. To suggest that either of these statements demonstrates that Ahmed does not have a political opinion is disingenuous. Ahmed has a definite political opinion  he believes that the Biharis are treated very poorly in Bangladesh and he wishes to leave Bangladesh for Pakistan. Ahmed's testimony may have inartfully stated his position, but we do not think that it can be interpreted as disavowing his claims that the government and police are trying to oppress us . . . when we try to say something. Rather, it is because Ahmed makes no secret of his beliefs and because he is an outspoken organizer and leader of Biharis in refugee camps that he was beaten, detained, and threatened. Thus, we reject the Government's assertion that Ahmed does not raise a claim for past persecution on account of his political opinion.
There is no dispute that Ahmed was beaten and jailed by the army and the police because of his participation in a hunger strike and two political demonstrations. Ahmed was a political organizer and leader in the SPGRC, and he did not keep his political views a secret. Despite these facts, the IJ found that Ahmed had not suffered past persecution. His arrests at these violent demonstrations . . . is not persecution. The fact that the police beat the people that they had taken in custody is more of a reflection on police tactics in countries such as Bangladesh than it is any indication that he had any political opinion they wished to overcome, or any hatred they had toward the Biharis. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Ahmed was violent at the protests or that he advocated violence. Ahmed testified that the protests began peacefully but became violent later on. He testified that the police beat him up for participating in a hunger strike; however, there is no evidence that Ahmed was violent during the strike. Ahmed testified that while demonstrating in front of the Pakistani embassy in 1991, we circled it and we sat there, and [we] tried to give the Ambassador . . . a memorandum. Although Ahmed testified that stones were thrown towards the embassy, there is no evidence that Ahmed threw rocks at the embassy, that he was violent, or that he advocated violence. Testifying about the third demonstration, Ahmed stated that he and the rest of the Bihari community, all got together there, and we were having speeches and trying to see what we can do. We were swearing, and we were taking an oath what we are going to do, when the police came and removed the microphones. [6] Again, there is no evidence that Ahmed was violent at the demonstration or that he advocated violence. Ahmed testified that he told the police, If you don't give us the freedom to speak today, then this very Bangladesh is going to become Pakistan again. [7] That was clearly a political statement, and after it was made, the police beat up Ahmed and other demonstrators and told Ahmed that he would be killed if he ever tried to organize or speak up again. Ahmed testified, they are trying to oppress us . . . when we try to say something, and as a result of his involvement with the demonstrations, he was beaten, detained, and threatened. With respect to all three demonstrations, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Ahmed was violent, advocated violence, or did anything other than make political statements. Physical harm has consistently been treated as persecution. See Duarte de Guinac, 179 F.3d at 1161. Where an asylum applicant suffers such harm on more than one occasion, and, as in this case, is victimized at different times over a period of years, the cumulative effect of the harms is severe enough that no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that it did not rise to the level of persecution. See Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1074 (9th Cir.2000); Korablina, 158 F.3d at 1044 (noting the cumulative effect of several instances of violence and harassment compel finding of persecution). Ahmed was the victim of violence on three occasions, on all of which he was beaten by the police or army. Here, the detentions, beatings, and threats that Ahmed was subjected to are disproportionate to Ahmed's activities. Therefore, we find that Ahmed's suffering rises to the level of persecution. See Fedunyak v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir.2007) (finding that beatings, and death threats made after petitioner voiced political opinion rose to the level of persecution); Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1197, 1203 (9th Cir.2004) (finding that two arrests and repeated beatings constituted persecution); Mamouzian v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1129, 1134 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that repeated physical abuse combined with detention and threats constituted persecution); Salaam v. INS, 229 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that politically active petitioner who had been arrested and tortured suffered persecution). Because Ahmed holds a political belief and he was persecuted for voicing his opinion, we find that Ahmed suffered persecution on account of a political opinion. See Navas, 217 F.3d at 656. Therefore, we find that the IJ's finding that Ahmed did not suffer past persecution on account of his involvement with violent protests is not supported by substantial evidence. [8]
Ahmed's uncle was captured by the government and killed in 1972. [9] The IJ found that the uncle may have been involved in espionage and therefore the government would have a legitimate interest in prosecuting him. However, the circumstances surrounding the uncle's death suggest that his death was politically motivated and not the product of legitimate prosecution. Ordinary prosecution for criminal activity is generally not a ground for relief. See Chanco v. INS, 82 F.3d 298, 301 (9th Cir.1996). However, as mentioned earlier, if the prosecution is motivated by a protected ground, and the punishment is sufficiently serious or disproportionate, the sanctions imposed can amount to persecution. See Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir.2000). Here, the army sought Ahmed's uncle because of his political opinion  he opposed the creation of an independent Bangladesh. The army also suspected Ahmed and his older brother, and all three were beaten. But regardless of Ahmed's beliefs at the time, the fact that Ahmed was beaten when captured with his uncle suggests that the army imputed to Ahmed his uncle's political opinion. [10] See Sangha, 103 F.3d at 1488-89. It seems rather unlikely that Ahmed's uncle, a Bihari refugee, would have the means or opportunity to collaborate with Pakistan. Nonetheless, Ahmed's uncle was killed in front of Ahmed  without a trial or any other form of due process  and Ahmed and his brother were beaten when they tried to prevent their uncle's death. The Country Report for Bangladesh states that police corruption and abuse is rampant. The Government frequently uses the police for political purposes. There is widespread police corruption and lack of discipline. Police officers committed numerous serious human rights abuses and were seldom disciplined, even for the most egregious actions. . . . Police committed a number of extra-judicial killings, and some persons died in police custody under suspicious circumstances. Police routinely used torture, beatings, and other forms of abuse while interrogating suspects. . . . The Government rarely punishes persons responsible for torture or unlawful deaths. Thus, even if Ahmed's uncle had collaborated with the Pakistanis, the facts that Ahmed's uncle was killed and Ahmed and his brother were severely beaten by the army suggest persecution on account of a political opinion. See Navas, 217 F.3d at 656. That Ahmed was beaten absent any due process also supports his claim of persecution on account of a political opinion. See Miranda Alvarado v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915, 930-31 (9th Cir.2006) (We have repeatedly held that persecution in the absence of any legitimate criminal prosecution, conducted at least in part on account of political opinion constitutes persecution on account of political opinion, even if the persecution served intelligence-gathering purposes.) (internal citation omitted); Ndom v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 743, 755 (9th Cir.2004) ([E]ven if the government authorities' motivation for detaining and mistreating [an applicant] was partially for reasons of security, persecution in the absence of any legitimate criminal prosecution, conducted at least in part on account of political opinion, provides a proper basis for asylum and withholding of deportation, even if the persecution served intelligence gathering purposes.) (internal quotations and alternations omitted); Navas, 217 F.3d at 660 (If there is no evidence of a legitimate prosecutorial purpose for a government's harassment of a person . . . there arises a presumption that the motive for harassment is political.). In sum, the facts that Ahmed was beaten because of his political opinion, or an opinion imputed to him, and that he was abused by the police absent any due process protections, support his contention that he suffered past persecution. See Navas, 217 F.3d at 656; Sangha, 103 F.3d at 1488-89. Further, that Ahmed's uncle was captured and killed by the government provides further support to Ahmed's claim of past persecution. See Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2004) (Violence directed against an applicant's family members provides support for a claim of persecution and in some instances is sufficient to establish persecution because such evidence may well show that [an applicant's] fear . . . of persecution is well founded.) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Thus, we find that this event supports Ahmed's asylum claim.
Like Ahmed, his brother was politically active and an organizer in the Bihari community. He was kidnaped by members of the Awami League because he refused to provide Bihari supporters to attend the Awami League's opposition rallies. Ahmed's brother did not want to provide supporters because the government would withhold food from the camp. Ahmed's brother's refusal to cooperate with the Awami League was based, at least in part, on a political opinion (i.e., the brother did not want to anger the government and possibly lose food for the camp.) Ahmed's brother took a political position opposing the Awami League, and he was kidnaped (and presumably killed) as a result. There is no evidence that the perpetrators were ever prosecuted by the Bangladesh government. The IJ found that these events do not constitute persecution because the perpetrators were the Awami League, not the Government, and one can't think of any reason why the government would want to assist an opposition party recruit additional people for their opposition rallies. However, Ahmed is not required to show persecution from the government; acts of harassment or violence perpetrated by an entity that the government fails to control can constitute evidence of persecution. See Korablina, 158 F.3d at 1044. There is no dispute that Ahmed's brother was kidnaped by the Awami League. [11] The record suggests that Bangladesh's government does not administer the camps, and there is no control over who goes into and out of the camps. The government's unwillingness or inability to control the actions of private parties  namely, the Awami League  inside or near the camps, supports Ahmed's asylum claim. See Singh v. INS, 94 F.3d 1353, 1359 (9th Cir.1996) (noting that government inaction in the face of persecution by private groups that the government is unwilling or unable to control may support a claim for asylum). Further, we find the fact that Ahmed's brother was captured and presumably killed by the Awami League provides additional support for Ahmed's claim of past persecution. See Baballah, 367 F.3d at 1074-75 (recognizing that violence directed against an applicant's family members provides support for a claim of persecution).