Opinion ID: 3051884
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Section 1252(a)(2)(D) grants us jurisdiction to review “the application of statutes and regulations to undisputed historical facts.” Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir. 2007) (footnote omitted). The questions we address in this opinion fit this rubric. “Where, as here, the BIA has reviewed the IJ’s decision and incorporated . . . it as its own, we treat . . . the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002). We review legal questions de novo, see id., and factual findings regarding eligibility for asylum for FAKHRY v. MUKASEY 4905 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2007).

[1] Applications for asylum must be filed within one year of an alien’s arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Failure to file within one year will not bar an application, however, where the alien demonstrates “the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” Id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). DHS’s regulations provide a nonexhaustive list of examples: (A) Changes in conditions in the applicant’s country of nationality or, if the applicant is state- less, country of last habitual residence; (B) Changes in the applicant’s circumstances that materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum, including changes in applicable U.S. law and activities the applicant becomes involved in outside the country of feared perse- cution that place the applicant at risk; or (C) In the case of an alien who had previously been included as a dependent in another alien’s pending asylum application, the loss of the spousal or parent-child relationship to the principal applicant through marriage, divorce, death, or attainment of age 21. 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)(i). The regulations further provide that “[t]he applicant shall file an asylum application within a rea4906 FAKHRY v. MUKASEY sonable period given those ‘changed circumstances.’ ” Id. § 208.4(a)(4)(ii).
The IJ noted that “certainly the country conditions have been changing,” but held the exception did not apply because of Fakhry’s “constant interest in remaining in the United States, not being returned to Senegal and being afraid to return from day one.” Fakhry argues that the IJ applied the wrong legal standard, because an alien’s subjective intent to apply for asylum is not relevant to the changed circumstances analysis. [2] We agree that the timing of an alien’s intent to apply for asylum has no role in the changed circumstances analysis. “Changed circumstances” are those which “materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) (emphasis added); see 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)(i). Eligibility for asylum, in turn, is established by demonstrating “ ‘persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’ ” Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). The applicant’s subjective state of mind does play a role in establishing eligibility for asylum because a well-founded fear of persecution must be “both ‘subjectively genuine’ and ‘objectively reasonable.’ ” Id. (quoting Velarde v. INS, 140 F.3d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1998)); see 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i).7 A subjective fear of persecution 7 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i) provides: (i) An applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution if: (A) The applicant has a fear of persecution in his or her country of nationality or, if stateless, in his or her country of last habitual residence, on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; FAKHRY v. MUKASEY 4907 may often correlate with a subjective intent to apply for asylum, as an alien who fears persecution will often also intend to apply for asylum. But this potential overlap does not change the fact that the two subjective states of mind are distinct, or the fact that subjective fear of persecution alone does not suffice to establish a well-founded fear of persecution — the fear must also be objectively reasonable. Thus, there can be “changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum” even if the alien always meant to apply for asylum and always feared persecution; a sudden “Eureka!” state of mind is not necessary. In short, the subjective intent standard applied by the IJ is contrary to the statute and regulations, and we have found no authority suggesting otherwise.8 Moreover, a subjective intent standard would contradict a likely purpose of the exception: to excuse late applications when an alien previously had a weak or nonexistent case for asylum. Take, for example, the case of an alien who came to the United States wanting to apply for asylum and fearing per- (B) There is a reasonable possibility of suffering such per- secution if he or she were to return to that country; and (C) He or she is unable or unwilling to return to, or avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of such fear. 8 None of the published BIA opinions applying the changed circumstances exception rely on the alien’s subjective intent to apply for asylum or on the timing of the alien’s subjective fear of persecution. See Matter of A-T-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 296, 301-02 (BIA 2007) (rejecting as a changed circumstance the fact that the asylum applicant’s parents arranged for her to marry her first cousin, a marriage she did not wish to enter, because her asylum application was not filed within a reasonable time after she became aware of this circumstance); Matter of A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 738-39 (BIA 2005) (rejecting nightclub bombing in Bali as a changed circumstance in part because, as the bombing victims were mostly foreign tourists, the circumstance did not materially affect the alien’s asylum application based on his Chinese ethnicity and Christian faith). 4908 FAKHRY v. MUKASEY secution should she return, but felt that she would not qualify on the objective reasonableness grounds. Not wanting to file an application that would be denied, she did not file. After her second year in the United States, changed circumstances in her country of origin made her application much stronger, prompting her late application. Why should she be penalized for declining to clog the immigration courts with a meritless application? The statute’s description of “changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum” reasonably includes this alien’s situation.9 [3] We conclude that there is no support in the statute, case law, or purposes of the statute for the IJ’s holding that Fakhry did not qualify for the changed circumstances exception solely because his subjective intent to apply for asylum — and subjective fear — existed before the expiration of the one-year asylum application period. See Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2006) (unpublished, single-member BIA decision warrants only the deference due in light of its thoroughness, validity and persuasiveness, pursuant to Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)). The IJ erred in so holding.
Fakhry argues that he has demonstrated changed circumstances materially affecting his asylum application: In early 2001, Fakhry learned from his brother that the Senegalese government had captured MFDC membership records, and in March 2001 a peace agreement was signed between the Sene- 9 At oral argument, counsel for the government essentially so conceded: The Court: If there is a changed country condition — if the IJ looks at it or if we look at it objectively and we think the IJ got it wrong — then it shouldn’t matter whether or not he had a subjective intent to file for asylum from Day One. AUSA: On that I agree, absolutely. FAKHRY v. MUKASEY 4909 galese government and the MFDC.10 Then, in the spring of 2002, the peace agreement broke down and fighting resumed. This resumption of fighting, in conjunction with Fakhry’s reasonable belief that the Senegalese government had record evidence of his membership in the MFDC, could constitute changed circumstances materially affecting Fakhry’s eligibility for asylum. For the first time since his arrival in the United States, Fakhry had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that the Senegalese government both could identify him as an MFDC member and would persecute him on this ground. [4] The IJ, while finding Fakhry ineligible for the “changed circumstances” exception because of his continuous subjective intent to apply for asylum, also recognized that “country conditions have been changing.” But the IJ did not specifically find that Fakhry would have qualified for the “changed circumstances” exception but for his subjective state of mind. Because the agency applied the wrong legal standard and has not considered the issue using the correct standard, we remand for a determination of whether Fakhry demonstrated changed circumstances and, if so, whether he applied for asylum within the requisite “reasonable period.” See OrnelasChavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[W]here the BIA applies the wrong legal standard to an applicant’s claim, the appropriate relief from this court is remand for reconsideration under the correct standard . . . .”); Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. If we conclude that the BIA’s decision cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues remaining in the case.”).
10 The sequence of these events is unclear, but the record suggests that the peace agreement took place shortly after Fakhry learned about the membership records. 4910 FAKHRY v. MUKASEY The IJ also denied Fakhry’s asylum application on the merits, finding that Fakhry failed to establish past persecution, and that even if he established a well-founded fear of future persecution — a question the IJ declined to decide — he was reasonably able to relocate to Dakar and avoid persecution there. [5] An alien can establish eligibility for asylum by proving past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a), (b)(1)-(2); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). A well-founded fear of persecution ordinarily cannot be established, however, if the applicant “could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country . . . , if under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii). But where “the persecutor is a government or is government-sponsored, . . . it shall be presumed that internal relocation would not be reasonable, unless the Service establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.” Id. § 208.13(b)(3)(ii); see also Harpinder Singh v. Ilchert, 63 F.3d 1501, 1511 (9th Cir. 1995) (“This court presumes that in a case of persecution by a governmental body such as a national police force, the government has the ability to persecute the applicant throughout the country.”). [6] Fakhry testified he feared persecution at the hands of the Senegalese government. He thus gains the benefit of the presumption that the threat of persecution exists nationwide and that relocation is therefore unreasonable. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003). The IJ, however, failed to apply this presumption. In his discussion of Fakhry’s ability to relocate, he never referred to the presumption or placed any significance on the fact that the persecutor is the government. Further, in weighing the evidence, the IJ appeared to place the burden on Fakhry to disprove the reaFAKHRY v. MUKASEY 4911 sonableness of internal relocation: “I am satisfied that it’s not unreasonable to expect the respondent could go to Dakar and remain free of any indicated problems that he has.” The IJ’s failure to apply the presumption was error. [7] Whether the government rebutted this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence and, if so, whether Fakhry established a well-founded fear of persecution, are questions for the agency on remand. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,