Opinion ID: 75479
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Actual Political Opinion

Text: First, the Al Najjars argue that they demonstrated well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of their actual political opinion in Palestinian self-determination and opposition to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. We utilize a very deferential substantial evidence test to review the IJ's factual determination to the contrary. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481, 112 S.Ct. at 815. We will reverse the denial of asylum only if the evidence presented by the applicant is so overwhelming that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution exists. Mazariegos, 241 F.3d at 1323-24 (emphasis in original). There is substantial record evidence demonstrating Mazen's personal belief and outspoken advocacy for Palestinian autonomy. Before the IJ, Mazen testified that he did not agree with the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. The record further reveals that Mazen helped begin a think-tank, WISE, which was ostensibly committed to educat[ing] the public about Islamic issues through research, publishing and seminars. Mazen volunteered countless hours to the activities of WISE, and the resume he submitted to the immigration court indicates that he was the Executive Director of WISE from 1990 until the organization dissolved in the mid-nineties. WISE produced various seminars and journals that focused on the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and advocated autonomy and self-determination for Palestine. Mazen acted as an editor in the publication of many of these journals and was a speaker regarding Palestinian issues at some of the WISE-sponsored conferences. Based on these offers of proof, there is reasonable, substantial, and from Mazen's detainment impact their asylum claims. Nonetheless, the Al Najjars concede that the BIA did not consider any evidence of Mazen's detainment in reviewing their appeals. For instance, the Al Najjars admit that the BIA did not take into consideration the change in circumstances and probability for persecution or torture which would result if the Dr. Al Najjar and his wife were returned to Israel, the UAE, Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Appellant Mazen's Opening Brief at 9. We agree. In both Mazen's and Fedaa's cases, the BIA affirm[ed] the Immigration Judge's decision for the reasons set forth therein and emphatically declared that no classified information was considered by the Board in deciding the instant appeal and motion to remand. Thus, it is apparent that the BIA only considered the evidence before the IJ which pertained solely to imputed opinions, if any, directed at the Al Najjars. Since Mazen was arrested after the IJ decisions, it follows that none of the imputed opinions springing from Mazen's detainment was considered by the BIA or IJ. Accordingly, we will consider only those political opinions imputed to the Al Najjars prior to Mazen's detainment, as we are empowered to review decisions based only on record evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4). To the extent we recognize Mazen's custody proceedings, we decline to place any reliance thereon in reviewing the immigration courts' decisions on the asylum petitions. probative evidence on the record as a whole demonstrating Mazen's actual belief in Palestinian self-determination.16 Demonstrating one's political opinion, however, is merely one component of the refugee inquiry.17 See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To be eligible for asylum, the alien must establish a well-founded fear that his or her political opinion (or other statutorily listed factor) will cause harm or suffering that rises to the level of persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Demonstrating such a connection requires the alien to present 'specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution'  on account of such an opinion. Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994)18 (quoting Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992)); Rezai v. INS, 62 F.3d 1286, 1289 (10th Cir.1995) (alien must present specific, credible evidence to support his claim that he has been persecuted or will be persecuted if deported); M.A. v. U.S. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 311 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc) (To validate the 'well-foundedness' of his fear, [the alien] must set forth specific, concrete facts.). Mazen failed to demonstrate that he possessed a well-founded fear of persecution in the UAE on account of his actual political opinion regarding Palestinian autonomy. The voluminous record in this case contains only a few documents cataloguing political and social conditions in the UAE. While some of the 16 Fedaa did not testify regarding the substance of her actual political opinions; no witness attested that she believed in Palestinian autonomy or self-determination; and there was no documentary evidence which purported to attribute such an ideology to her. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence to support the IJ's determination that Fedaa failed to demonstrate that her actual political opinions were hostile to the Saudi government. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994) (an alien must present 'specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution' ). Thus, it follows that there is substantial evidence in the record to uphold the IJ's finding that she failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her actual political opinions. 17 Mazen need not prove that the UAE has actual knowledge of his allegedly offensive political opinions regarding Palestine. While evidence that authorities lie in wait to punish an asylum applicant would certainly strengthen any petition to the Board, it is not evidence necessary to the 'well-founded fear' inquiry. Najafi v. INS, 104 F.3d 943, 949 (7th Cir.1997) (reversing the immigration courts for requiring an Iranian who converted to Christianity to prove that the Iranian government had knowledge of his apostasy); Osaghae v. INS, 942 F.2d 1160, 1164 (7th Cir.1991) (Asylum is not limited to the notorious.). Instead, evidence that the removal country has knowledge of the asylum applicant's political opinion is merely probative, and not dispositive, of the strength of his or her well-founded fear. 18 By citing and relying on Faddoul, we do not imply concurrence with the Fifth Circuit's definition of persecution in that case. See 189 F.3d at 188 (construing persecution as requiring 'a showing by the alien that harm of suffering will be inflicted upon [her] in order to punish ' ). Neither the scope nor definition of persecution is at issue in the instant case, and we need not determine the precise contours of the term at this time. The Al Najjars have failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution under any of the extant formulations of the standard. media reports in the record contain isolated comments about political conditions in various Middle Eastern countries, none offers any facts that are relevant to this vein of Mazen's argument. Instead, the primary offer of documentary proof regarding conditions in the UAE (and Saudi Arabia) derives from reports published by the Department of State regarding human rights practices. See U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 1995, at 1249 (Saudi Arabia), at 1274 (UAE) (Department of State Report or DOS Report). The 1995 Department of State Report, however, not only discounts Mazen's argument here; it rebuts it. First, the DOS Report states that there have been no reports of politically motivated disappearances or torture at the hands of the Emirate government. See DOS Report, supra, at 1276. Then, the Report explains that there have been no reported political prisoners in the UAE. See id. Thus, there is no reason to think that Mazen will be jailed for his political beliefs, whatever they may be. Cutting even further against Mazen's position, the DOS Report indicates that the Emirate government is not hostile to Mazen's ideology, but in fact sympathizes with his position regarding Palestinian autonomy. The Report explains that, commensurate with the country's censorship policies, officials with the Ministry of Information and Culture censor foreign periodicals, books, and broadcasting programs to weed out material that the government wishes to suppress. See id. at 1277. Predominately, the censored material is that which is contrary to Islam, such as pornography, but the Ministry also censors that which is derogatory to the Emirate government and material that is favorable to Israel. Id. Insofar as the UAE has a policy of censoring materials that are favorable to Israel, the UAE has an official position that is similar to Mazen's advocacy against Israel and in favor of Palestinian self-determination. Because Mazen's actual political opinions are, at the very least, not in conflict with the official policy of the UAE, we fail to see any threat that Mazen will be persecuted by the Emirate government for his actual convictions. Accordingly, we find substantial evidence supporting the IJ's determination that Mazen failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on his actual political opinion in Palestinian self-determination. To the extent Mazen argues that he will suffer persecution on account of the official stifling of academic freedom and political advocacy in the UAE, we reject his argument. The DOS Report explains that the UAE's Provisional Constitution creates freedom of speech, but, in practice, this freedom is rather limited. See id. at 1276. There are unwritten but generally recognized bans on criticism of the government, and the UAE prohibits the formation of political parties. See DOS Report, supra, at 1277. These restrictions are insufficient to amount to persecution. First, Mazen testified that he has never criticized the Emirate government. Because Mazen has never articulated the forbidden speech, we fail to see why his academic advocacy would be officially silenced by the Emirate authorities. Second, and more importantly, [p]olitical conditions 'which affect the populace as a whole or in large part are generally insufficient to establish [persecution].'  Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1355 (11th Cir.2000) (quoting Mitev v. INS, 67 F.3d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir.1995)). Because any governmental bar on political advocacy, association, or free speech is applicable to the general population of the UAE, these social constraints do not amount to persecution on the grounds of political opinion. See id.