Opinion ID: 2996942
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Reopen Based on Changed Country

Text: Conditions The BIA refused to reopen the Pelinkovics’ asylum application due to changed country conditions because the evidence presented with the September 1998 petition did 6 No. 02-3065 not establish prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding of deportation. Aliens claiming asylum bear the burden of showing they were subject to persecution in their country of origin or have a well-founded fear of future persecution upon their return home on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Capric, 355 F.3d at 1084. To succeed in establishing a prima facie case, a petitioner “must present specific facts demonstrating that he has . . . good reason to believe that he will be singled out for persecution.” Petrovic v. INS, 198 F.3d 1034, 1037 (7th Cir. 2000); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i). In other words, the Pelinkovics needed to present evidence that Rizaja individually would be subject to persecution upon return home based on changed country conditions in Montenegro. A petitioner can also attempt to establish a prima facie case by presenting “a pattern and practice of persecution of an identifiable group, to which he belongs, such that his fear [of persecution] is reasonable.” Capric, 355 F.3d at 1094 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii)). To meet this standard, the Pelinkovics needed to show that Rizaja would be subject to persecution per se because of his ethnic Albanian or Muslim status. The Pelinkovics based their motion to reopen because of changed country conditions on two separate grounds— eligibility for military service and generalized discriminatory conditions. We will discuss each in turn.
The BIA determined that Rizaja’s renewed fear that if he returned home to Montenegro he and his son would be forced to fight in another war in which they did not believe, or be punished for not doing so, did not overcome the FRY’s right to require military service from its citizens and to No. 02-3065 7 enforce that right with reasonable penalties. Thus, the BIA reasoned, Rizaja and Svebor’s eligibility for military service did not amount to persecution. First, the Pelinkovics argue that this determination was patently wrong and unreasonable because the war in Kosovo, unlike the Croatian war from which they originally fled, was targeted at ethnic Albanians. Specifically, Rizaja predicted that if forcibly conscripted into the military, he and his son would be ordered to take part in human rights abuses against ethnic-Albanian Kosovars and be asked to kill fellow Albanians leading the revolt. We understand him to oppose such activities based on his shared ethnic heritage with the Kosovars. We have previously acknowledged that “in some cases, refusal to enter the army may render one a refugee if for instance, the reason for refusal is a ‘genuine political, religious or moral conviction or for valid reasons of conscience.’ ” Vujisic v. INS, 224 F.3d 578, 581 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ¶ 170 (Geneva 1979)). Yet, Rizaja failed to present evidence that if he or his son were forcibly conscripted into the FRY military they, as individuals, would be forced to serve in Kosovo and commit the acts to which they morally objected. Rather, the general evidence submitted paints a picture of strong Montenegrin resistance to sending its citizens to fight in Kosovo. Several articles provided by the Pelinkovics with their petition report the Montenegrin Assembly’s demand that Montenegrin conscripts be released from service in Kosovo and returned to stations in Montenegro, with one article noting that only fifteen percent of Montenegrin conscripts were even deployed in Kosovo. Indeed, the evidence creates some question as to whether ethnic Albanians were desirable army conscripts 8 No. 02-3065 at all. A news report by the British Broadcasting Corporation (“BBC”) states that it asked FRY military leaders why ethnic Albanians were not serving in the army. The BBC characterizes the response received as a “typical militarystyle answer,” which was, “[i]t is not we who decided that they should not serve, and you know very well who did.” (A.R. at 136.) The BBC’s article squares with a 1997 State Department report noting that the FRY was generally unenthusiastic about arming ethnic minorities. See Capric, 355 F.3d at 1094. Further, although Rizaja states in his affidavit in support of the petition to reopen that army conscripts who refuse an order to shoot a fellow Albanian are themselves shot on sight, there is nothing in the record to support this allegation. Second, aside from their moral convictions against the war, the Pelinkovics urge that the BIA should have gleaned from the evidence presented in their petition to reopen that “military service was itself a staging area for persecution” of ethnic Albanian males. Rizaja swore in his affidavit attached to the petition that “[t]here have been credible reports of the murder of Albanian solders [sic], as shown by the exhibits I have attached to this petition.” (A.R. at 81, ¶ 9.) Yet, out of the twenty-seven news articles provided by the Pelinkovics, only one murder of a single ethnic-Albanian soldier is reported. The circumstances surrounding his death are not discussed, but are decried by an ethnicAlbanian Montenegrin political party as evidence that the FRY military “is clearly conducting a policy of expulsion, illtreatment, harassment and stage-managed crimes.” (A.R. at 141.) Except for this one self-interested statement by a political party, no neutral source backs up the Pelinkovics’ claim. Third, the Pelinkovics argue that Rizaja and Svebor will be punished for avoiding military service, entitling them to asylum. We recognize that if the “ ‘military action with No. 02-3065 9 which an individual does not want to be associated, is condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion or draft evasion could . . . in itself be regarded as persecution.’ ” Vujisic, 224 F.3d at 581 (again quoting the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, ¶ 171). It is beyond question that the Kosovar conflict which the Pelinkovics sought to avoid was condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct. Id. at 582 (noting the continued condemnation of Yugoslavia’s campaign in Kosovo, as evidenced by NATO bombings). Yet, the Pelinkovics failed to provide the BIA with evidence that if Rizaja and Svebor refused to obey the summons to serve, they would be subject to punishment. Instead, the record documents exhibit only lukewarm, sporadic attempts by the military to punish draft dodgers. According to the single article submitted by the Pelinkovics discussing the army’s attempt to punish those Montenegrins avoiding military service, the number sought to be prosecuted was listed as “more than thirty,” but only two “showed up” in court over two days—one ethnic Serb and one ethnic Albanian. They were both promptly fined, but not imprisoned. Although the article speaks of progressively worse punishment for those who avoid appearing in court and continue to refuse to answer the call, no other articles report pursuit or harassment of draft dodgers. Further, the article fails to confirm the Pelinkovics’ claim, made exclusively in their briefs, that ethnic Albanians received more severe treatment for draft evasion than did those of Serbian descent. Based on the lack of evidence supporting the Pelinkovics’ claim that Rizaja and Svebor’s eligibility for military service in the Kosovar conflict rises to the level of persecution, we find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition to reopen on that ground. The BIA rationally concluded that the FRY retained the right to call upon its 10 No. 02-3065 citizens to serve in the military and to punish them proportionally when they refused. In the case of the Pelinkovics, based on the evidence presented, they failed to show that, if conscripted, they would serve in Kosovo or, if they chose to avoid military service, they would be punished for such avoidance. They also failed to provide prima facie evidence, either individually or on a per se basis, that ethnic Albanians were treated more harshly within the military or as draft dodgers. We note that the Pelinkovics’ case is distinguishable from Vujisic v. INS, 224 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 1997) and Begzatowski v. INS, 278 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2002) on which petitioners heavily rely. In Vujisic and Begzatowski both, we reversed the BIA’s denial of the petitioners’ asylum applications that presented evidence of Yugoslav military abuses directed individually at the petitioners because of ethnicity, and did so under a slightly less deferential standard of review than that applicable here. See 224 F.3d at 581 (reviewing the BIA’s decision to deny the petitioner’s asylum application under the substantial evidence test); 278 F.3d at 668 (same). Vujisic was a Slovenian ethnic Serb who ignored Yugoslav military reactivation orders in 1991 because of his objections to the invasion into Slovenia. 224 F.3d at 579. While previously serving in the military, he was beaten and accused of being a spy because of his Slovenian origins. Id. Importantly, he was able to show fear of future persecution should he rejoin the military based upon the treatment of his father, also in the Yugoslav military. According to Vujisic, after he failed to appear for service, his father was arrested, questioned about his son’s whereabouts, and dishonorably discharged without pension benefits. Id. at 581. We held that his experiences while in the military and his family’s plight after his failure to obey reactivation orders showed that the “Serbian officials singled out Vujisic for persecution above that of other draftees, deserters and Slovenian sympathizers . . . .” Id. No. 02-3065 11 Begzatowski was an ethnic Albanian from Macedonia who deserted the Yugoslav military in 1990 after experiencing discriminatory treatment including segregation, lack of access to bathing facilities, lack of training, physical assaults and threats, and being used as a human shield in battle. 278 F.3d at 667. We reversed the BIA’s determination that Begzatowski did not experience past persecution based on his military experience because he provided evidence that he, as an ethnic Albanian, had been singled out for abuse. Id. at 670. Again, Rizaja made no such showing that changed country conditions would result in his or his son’s persecution by the FRY military upon their return home. The BIA’s decision to deny reopening of the Pelinkovics’ asylum claim on that ground was appropriate.
Separate from their concerns about military service, the Pelinkovics also alleged in their petition to reopen based on changed country conditions that Milosevic’s campaign against the ethnic-Albanian Kosovar insurgents subjected them, as ethnic-Albanian Montenegrins, to a credible fear of persecution upon their return home. The BIA determined that on the record before it, the Pelinkovics succeeded in only illuminating escalating civil strife. The BIA stated that it remained unpersuaded that the Pelinkovics would face persecution by Serbian nationalists based on their ethnicAlbanian heritage. Again, we find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the Pelinkovics’ case on these grounds. The majority of the articles submitted by the Pelinkovics outline Montenegro’s disagreement with Milosevic’s brutal attempts to suppress the Kosovar separatists and the resulting political schism between Serbia and Montenegro, foreshadowing civil war. The civil unrest reported by the 12 No. 02-3065 Pelinkovics affected all Montenegrins equally, regardless of ethnicity. We note, as we have many times before, that crisis conditions common to all citizens of the affected country do not present a prima facie case warranting reopening of an asylum claim. See Capric, 355 F.3d at 1084 (“However, generalized conditions of hardship which affect entire populations do not rise to the level of persecution.”); Bradvica v. INS, 128 F.3d 1009, 1013 (7th Cir. 1997) (noting that the generalized conditions of strife in BosniaHerzegovina did not support a claim of asylum because they did not show that the petitioner would be singled out for persecution); Sivaainkaran v. INS, 972 F.2d 161, 165 (7th Cir. 1992) (“[C]onditions of political upheaval which affect the populace as a whole or in large part are generally insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum.”). The Pelinkovics had to show more. To that end, the Pelinkovics argue, weakly, that because of their membership in a persecuted minority class, they are per se eligible for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii). Their evidence in support of this proposition includes articles describing abuses perpetrated by police against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, not in Montenegro, the Pelinkovics’ home. In Capric v. Ashcroft, we recently rejected the petitioners’ claim that they were per se eligible for asylum based on their religion and ethnicity. 355 F.3d at 1094-95. The Caprics, like the Pelinkovics, hailed from Bar, Montenegro and were Muslims and ethnic Albanians. The Caprics, like the Pelinkovics, based their asylum claim on the pattern of persecution and ethnic cleansing directed against Kosovar ethnic Albanians, who were struggling for independence from Serbia. After distinguishing the treatment between Montenegrin and Kosovar ethnic Albanians, we held that the “evidence does not show that this was an ‘extreme situation’ in which ethnic Albanians were subject to a pattern and practice of persecution in Montenegro.” Id. at 1095. The same is true here. No. 02-3065 13 Because the Pelinkovics cannot make a case that they would be per se subject to persecution based on their Muslim religion and ethnic-Albanian ancestry, they needed to come forward with evidence that they individually would be subject to religious/ethnic persecution upon their return home, which they did not do. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i). We have held in numerous cases involving applicants fleeing the war-torn Balkans that “fear of general conditions of ethnic persecution common to all members of an ethnic minority does not constitute the well-founded fear required by statute.” Petrovic, 198 F.3d at 1037 (collecting cases); Selimi, 360 F.3d at 740-41, (denying Macedonian ethnic Albanians’ petitions to reopen for failing to show that they would be individually targeted for persecution, instead stating generalized fear based on their membership in an ethnic minority); see also Sivaainkaran, 972 F.2d at 165 (noting that the petitioner’s homeland, Sri Lanka, “like so many countries across the globe, is locked in a seemingly intractable ethnic civil war,” but that such a sad state of political turmoil “does not permit the judiciary to stretch the definition of ‘refugee’ to cover sympathetic, yet statutorily ineligible, asylum applicants”). The BIA rationally determined that based on the evidence presented with their petition to reopen, the Pelinkovics did not establish a prima facie case that they would be persecuted in Montenegro because of their ethnic minority status. The petition to reopen was properly denied. We pause here to note that, as a final summation, the Pelinkovics broadly argue that based on what the world knows now of the heinous war crimes committed by Milosevic during the Kosovo campaign, the BIA should have viewed their moral objections to military service and their fear of persecution based on ethnicity more charitably. Yet, we take judicial notice that the Montenegro to which the Pelinkovics will return is much different from the one they left in 1992. See, e.g., Medhin v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 685, 690 14 No. 02-3065 (7th Cir. 2003) (taking judicial notice of the State Department’s current country report on Ethiopia); Dobrota v. INS, 195 F.3d 970, 973 (7th Cir. 1999) (taking judicial notice of the State Department’s most recent country report on Romania). The situation in the Balkans has improved dramatically. As of today, Milosevic is out of power and on trial in The Hague. The FRY has been dissolved and is renamed “Serbia and Montenegro.” Kosovo, still technically a part of the new Serbia and Montenegro, is a United Nations protectorate. Although living conditions remain difficult because of years of civil war and economic sanctions, and sporadic ethnic clashes still occur, the State Department notes continued improvement, along with few human rights abuses, including a negligible amount against Muslims of Albanian descent. See United States Department of State, Background Note: Serbia and Montenegro (Jan. 2004), available at http://www.state.gov/ r/pa/ei/bn/ 5388pf.htm; United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2003: Serbia and Montenegro (Feb. 25, 2 0 0 4 ) , a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/ 27874pf.htm. The country conditions in Serbia and Montenegro, which, after a decade of strife, have finally changed for the better, are yet another reason to uphold the BIA’s decision not to reopen their asylum claim. See Dobrota, 195 F.3d at 974 (affirming the BIA’s denial of aliens’ asylum application because current country conditions reflected no threat to the petitioners).