Opinion ID: 788423
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lanza's Affidavit and Oral Testimony

Text: 13 Lanza was born in Comodoro Rivadavia, Argentina on June 20, 1955. She attended the University of Buenos Aires for two years in the early 1980s, and then went on to work as a file clerk at the Municipal Offices of Caseros. Lanza claimed that while working as a municipal employee, she became involved in the Union Civica Radical (UCR), a political party led by Raul Alfonsin (Alfonsin). Alfonsin was opposed to Argentina's military-run government and wanted to return Argentina to democracy. Lanza said that she acted as a liaison between the party and the community and lobbied for votes on the party's behalf. 14 In 1983, following the defeat of the Argentine military in the Falklands/Malvinas War, Argentina held a free general election. Alfonsin was elected president. Lanza testified that she became a well-known union organizer during Alfonsin's presidency and continued to assist the UCR with its campaigns and activities. She alleged that she, along with others, founded Asociacion Sindical de Agentes Municipales, a union for municipal agents and employees. 15 An early presidential election was held in May 1989. Argentina was experiencing food shortages, unemployment, and civil unrest. Alfonsin was defeated and Carlos Saul Menem (Menem), a member of the Peronist Justicialist Party, was elected president. Lanza testified that she remained noticeably active in the UCR during Menem's presidency. In particular, she said that she opposed Menem's attempts to privatize state-owned businesses. Lanza claimed that she was blacklisted by the Menem government and lost her job at the Municipal Offices. She also said that she could not find suitable work for a person with her qualifications. 16 Lanza claimed that her troubles with the Menem government escalated in February 1990. She alleged that three men came to her home in Buenos Aires the night of February 19, 1990. She said that they first went to the room where her young daughter was sleeping and closed the door as they passed. 2 Lanza claimed that they then went over to her (Lanza), pushed her against the wall, and told her to sit in a chair. She alleged that the men punched her, called her a crazy nationalist and stupid idealist, and told her that women should not be in politics. She also alleged that they threatened to kill her and her daughter if she continued her political activities. Lanza claimed that the men were members of the Comando de Organizacion, a paramilitary group that took orders from Menem's Peronist Justicialist Party. She admitted that she never reported this incident to the police. She also admitted that she did not receive other threats while she was in Argentina. 17 After this alleged incident, Lanza went to the United States Embassy in Buenos Aires and applied for a tourist visa. 3 She did not ask for asylum. The Embassy denied her visa application on February 22, 1990. Lanza claimed that she met with a friend from the Embassy soon afterwards. 4 She said that her friend gave her the phone number of a man in Mexico named John who could take her to the United States if she wanted. On March 14, 1990, Lanza flew to Acapulco, Mexico with her daughter. Lanza testified that she had no intention of staying in Mexico for an extended period of time or of immigrating to the United States. She said that she planned to return to Buenos Aires after a few months and that she viewed the time in Acapulco as a vacation and a period of reflection. 18 Lanza testified that her intentions changed after arriving in Mexico. She said that she telephoned her father in Argentina once she arrived in Acapulco. Her father allegedly told her that two men had come looking for her. The men supposedly asked her father for details about where she was and when she would return. Lanza claimed that she was frightened and wanted to go to the United States. She said that she traveled from Acapulco to Tijuana and then called her contact, John. John agreed to take Lanza and her daughter across the border for $1,500.00. Lanza and her daughter entered the United States on March 20, 1990, near San Ysidro, California. They eventually moved to Seattle, Washington. 19 From 1990 to 1992, Lanza made no attempt to apply for asylum. In 1992, while living in Seattle, Lanza married Roy Rowan (Rowan), an American citizen. Lanza testified that she did not try to adjust her immigration status during the marriage because she d[id]n't know very much about the law. In 1994, Rowan moved to Atlanta to train for a job with IBM. Lanza planned to follow, but Rowan soon told Lanza that he was having an affair. Lanza testified that she wanted a divorce, but she said Rowan cautioned against it, insisting that Lanza would be protected if they remained married. Rowan died of AIDS in Georgia in 1996, after the couple had separated. 5 20 Three months after Rowan's death, Lanza married Willie Ray James (James). The two eventually bought a house together in Seattle. Lanza admitted that she knew that James was gay and that he had been diagnosed with HIV. She acknowledged that the primary purpose of the marriage was to help her with her immigration problems. She claimed that James was a very good friend and that she was going to help him live a healthier life. She also testified that she paid him money for his troubles. The couple had an interview with the INS on March 23, 1998. Three days after their interview with the INS, James left Lanza and withdrew the visa petition that he had filed on her behalf. 21 At her May 19, 1999 hearing, Lanza claimed that she would be persecuted if she returned to Argentina because the Menem government was still in power. 6 She admitted that she has not kept up with politics since leaving Argentina and that she did not know anything about the status of the UCR. She testified, however, that she would continue to speak out against the government if she was deported to Argentina. She told the IJ that she was not sure if any harm would come to her if she chose not to speak out against the government. She admitted that her brother, who was also a member of the UCR and continues to live in Argentina, has never been harmed. III. The Immigration Judge's Decision
22 In his November 4, 1999 decision, the IJ first addressed whether Lanza had timely filed her asylum petition. The Government argued that Lanza was ineligible for asylum because she did not file for asylum before April 1, 1998, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) and 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(2). Lanza claimed that she had no need to apply for asylum because she thought she would be allowed to remain in the United States through spousal petitions. The IJ concluded that Lanza failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse her failure to file within the limitations period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5) (2004). He noted: [o]bviously, the exceptions seem aimed at the asylum candidate asserting an inability to apply and do not cover any asylum candidate with no need to apply. He also noted that Lanza's second marriage to James was not stable and should not have been relied on as a substitute for asylum.
23 In his alternative finding on the merits of Lanza's asylum claim, the IJ held that Lanza failed to demonstrate a subjectively genuine or objectively reasonable fear of persecution.
24 On the issue of subjective fear of persecution, the IJ found that Lanza's failure to timely apply for asylum after her arrival in the United States indicated a lack of urgency in seeking ... the safety of this country. He also found at least the second marriage [to James] appears to have been a marriage of convenience and that resorting to such a marriage without [ ] first [seeking] asylum suggested a lack of true fear. 25 The IJ next observed that Lanza had no involvement with the UCR since coming to the United States in 1990. He found it unlikely she would be so disinterested in Argentinean politics and the activities of her union if she had truly been an activist. The IJ also observed that [Lanza's] brother belonged to the union and shared her feelings and yet he has never been harmed and that Lanza seemed to concede if she were not critical of the government ... she would not be harmed. 26
27 On the question of objectively reasonable fear, the IJ relied on the 1998 United States Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Argentina (the Report). The IJ noted that the Report stated there were no reports of politically motivated killings or politically motivated disappearances in 1998. He also observed that the Report stated that Argentina's constitution prohibits torture and the criminal code provides penalties for those who torture that are similar to those for homicide. The IJ explained that though the Report acknowledged that police brutality was a problem, it did not indicate that the police targeted individuals because of their political opinion. 28 The IJ noted that the Report stated that Argentina's constitution provides for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of peaceful assembly, and that those freedoms are respected in practice. He also noted that the Report indicated that [a] number of independent newspapers and magazines publish freely and privately owned radio and television stations broadcast freely as well. The IJ acknowledged that the government had been called from time to time to break up demonstrations in different provinces and that a few high-profile journalists had been harassed by the government, but he did not find these instances of repression significant. 29 The IJ found it unlikely that anyone would be interested in [Lanza] now if she returned bearing in mind the present conditions. Even by her own analysis, he said, if she does not speak out against the government she will likely not be harmed.
30 With respect to past persecution, the IJ indicated that he believed Lanza's home invasion story was false. The IJ found it significant that [Lanza] had already applied for a passport before the alleged home invasion. In his view, this suggested that Lanza intended to travel and fabricated the story about the armed men. He also noted that Lanza's testimony that she did not plan to go to the United States when she went to Mexico and only decided after she got there was not plausible and reflect[ed] adversely on her candor and honesty. 31 The IJ also assumed for the sake of argument that Lanza's home invasion story was true, and, relying on Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1995), found that the... episode where men broke into [Lanza's] home and pushed her and hit her and threatened her did not amount to past persecution. Citing Bolanos-Hernandez v. INS, 767 F.2d 1277, 1285(9th Cir.1984), the IJ also noted: With regard to the threats, persecution encompasses more than just threats, what matters is the will or ability to carry it out. 32
33 Because the IJ found that Lanza had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, he also found that Lanza failed to meet the more stringent requirements for withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). As to the CAT claim, the IJ concluded that Lanza had not shown by a preponderance of evidence that she would be subjected to torture by anyone.