Opinion ID: 60469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Persecution “on Account of” Religion

Text: In discussing the testimony of both Nikoly and Oksana, the IJ found there was no evidence the beatings and attacks they suffered were on account of their Baptist faith. The IJ noted Nikoly’s testimony that he was beaten in 1980, 1997, and 1998, but said “there is no evidence that this was motivated by individuals who wanted to suppress their religious beliefs.” When discussing Oksana’s testimony regarding the 1991 attack in the church, the IJ found there was no evidence the attack “was motivated because of the [Morehodovs’] religious beliefs.” We conclude the record compels a conclusion that the attacks described by the Morehodovs were the result of their Baptist faith. We note the IJ found both Nikoly and Oksana credible, and we will not disturb this finding. See Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006).2 In light of the credibility 2 To be more precise, the IJ said “the Court would find that they have been overall credible, although there are some issues which the Court will address separately as to the motivation for some of the things that they have testified to before the Court.” Even if the IJ intended to find the Morehodovs’ testimony regarding motivations incredible, she never returned to this point to provide specific, cogent reasons for doing so. We will therefore treat the Morehodovs as fully credible. See Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 10 determination, the IJ’s finding there was “no evidence” the attacks were motivated by the Morehodovs’ Baptist faith cannot be sustained. Both Nikoly’s and Oksana’s testimony is strong evidence their religious beliefs motivated several of the attacks. Nikoly testified the 1980 attack took place during his baptism, and the attackers accused him of engaging in devil worship during the attacks. According to Oksana’s testimony, the 1991 attack–where she was beaten so severely she miscarried–took place in the Baptist church she and Nikoly attended. The attackers accused them of conducting a “Satan’s meeting.” Nikoly also testified that during the 1997 incident, the attackers asked the group what they were proselytizing and preaching before beating them. While Nikoly did not testify the attackers in the 1998 incident made anti-Baptist statements during the actual attack, he and his companion were attacked only moments after departing a train where they had engaged in a religious conversation with other passengers. Yet the IJ engaged none of this testimony when she concluded there was “no evidence” to find the attacks were motivated by religion. Given the IJ’s credibility determination and the repeated testimony by the Morehodovs detailing anti-Baptists statements made before and during the multiple attacks, the record 2006). 11 compels the conclusion the attacks on the Morehodovs were motivated by their Baptist faith. B. Governmental Inability or Unwillingness to Control The IJ’s decision may still be affirmed if its finding that the Morehodovs failed to show governmental inability or unwillingness to control the groups which attacked the couple is supported by substantial evidence. Resolution of this issue is difficult, however, because the basis of the IJ’s finding is not clear. The IJ did note the Morehodovs provided no police reports of their attacks, but evidently this mattered to the IJ only insofar as police reports would provide support as to the motivations for the attacks. Moreover, the IJ flatly mischaracterizes the evidence. She found the Morehodovs had testified they never reported the incidents to the authorities. Specifically, the IJ found Oksana testified the 1991 incident was never reported and the police never notified. In fact, Oksana’s testimony was directly contrary to the IJ’s description. She stated she and Nikoly attempted to get protection from the police but the police were of no help. While neither applicant testified to contacting the police following any other incident, they did repeatedly state that going to the police would be futile and not result in protection. Additionally, the IJ ignored the affidavit of the Morehodovs’ purported expert on Ukraine, which at 12 least attempts to assert the existence of indifference or possibly hostility towards Baptists by the government in the country. In attempting to demonstrate past persecution, the applicant bears the burden of establishing the government was unable or unwilling to protect him from persecution. See Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1257 (noting the applicant bears the burden of proving refugee status). Moreover, a failure to report persecution to local authorities can be fatal to an asylum claim, unless an applicant convincingly demonstrates the authorities would have been unable or unwilling to protect her. Lopez, 504 F.3d at 1345. In this case, we simply cannot say whether the IJ’s finding regarding governmental unwillingness and inability is supported by substantial evidence, because what little reasoning the IJ provided on this matter mischaracterizes certain evidence and ignores other evidence. While Oksana testified they went to the authorities in 1991, we are unsure whether such a dated attempt to seek protection from governmental authorities, without evidence that they sought out the police after the later, more recent attacks, is sufficient to find they have demonstrated governmental inability or unwillingness to protect them. We also cannot meaningfully assess the effect of their expert affidavit without further explanation from the IJ. “[T]he general practice in this circuit is to remand when the IJ . . . fails to make adequate findings or give reasoned consideration to 13 all the evidence.” Sanchez Jimenez, 492 F.3d at 1237 (quotations omitted). Therefore, we think it appropriate in this case to remand to the IJ for a full consideration on the issue of whether the Morehodovs met their burden of demonstrating the Ukrainian government and police forces were unwilling or unable to protect them.