Opinion ID: 201440
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Objective Fear

Text: 14 Beginning with the objective component, Petitioner must prove that a reasonable person ... would fear persecution on account of his religion. Nelson, 232 F.3d at 264 (quoting Aguilar-Solis, 168 F.3d at 572). Petitioner must provide credible and specific evidence that this fear is reasonable. Mukamusoni, 390 F.3d at 120 (citing El Moraghy, 331 F.3d at 203). 15 Although the IJ found Petitioner generally not credible, Petitioner provided supporting evidence in the form of multiple news articles concerning the treatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt, as well as a 1997 terrorist attack by Muslim fundamentalists in Egypt. 6 Petitioner also supplied country condition reports on Egypt for the years 1995, 1996, 2000, and 2001. The 2000 and 2001 reports state that Muslim extremists continue to persecute religious minorities, specifically Coptic Christians, despite the national government's efforts to ensure free exercise of religion. The 2000 report also identifies four assaults by Muslim extremists on Coptic Christians, and notes that a trial had commenced that year for the premeditated murder of a Coptic priest by a Muslim extremist. The 1996 report explicitly states that [t]errorist violence against Christians was a problem, and that [t]errorist groups seeking to overthrow the Government and establish an Islamic state continued their attacks on police, Coptic Christians, and tourists. MB, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Egypt (1997) (emphasis added). 16 Despite what appears to be helpful background evidence, the IJ devotes one sentence in his opinion summarizing these reports, as well as the various news articles submitted by Petitioner, concluding that they only indicate that Moslem fundamentalists are seeking to overthrow the government of Egypt and establish a[n] Islamic fundamentalist government in Egypt. The IJ also found it significant that none of the articles or country condition reports refer to Petitioner or any of his family by name. But, the correct use of country condition reports is to provide a general description of conditions faced by Coptic Christians in Egypt. El Moraghy, 331 F.3d at 204 (emphasis added). Country condition reports need not refer to a petitioner by name to be probative. See id. (It is unrealistic to expect that country condition reports could contain references to all citizens of that country who have faced ... persecution and to demand that they do so ... is clearly erroneous.). 17 Here, there is simply an absence of reasoned discussion by the IJ of whether the country condition reports and articles sufficiently support Petitioner's claim that a reasonable person in Petitioner's shoes as a Coptic Christian living Egypt would fear returning to Egypt. See id. Therefore, we cannot determine if the IJ properly considered this evidence. But because, as we discuss below, Petitioner has failed to establish a subjective fear of persecution, we need not consider whether the IJ's cursory review of this documentary evidence was in error. 7 Cf. id. at 205 (remanding in light of misuse of country condition reports and the absence of key findings in IJ's discussion of both past persecution and fear of future persecution).