Opinion ID: 717519
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mrs. Gallegos's Petition.

Text: 30 There was not substantial evidence on the record as a whole for the BIA's conclusion that Mrs. Gallegos lacked a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her political opinion. That she had a genuine fear was implicit in the BIA determination that she was telling the truth about fearing that she would be killed. The issue was whether her genuine fear was well founded. The BIA had two grounds for saying it was not: that nothing was done to her while she was in Nicaragua to give a basis for the fear, and that the regime had changed. 31 Mrs. Gallegos was personally threatened with being disappeared. The threats were repeated, and were based on her political opinion, which was known to those who threatened her. The threats were backed by the official position of the neighborhood CDS chief and visits from armed soldiers. See Arteaga v. INS, 836 F.2d 1227, 1233 (9th Cir.1988)(threat by guerrillas directed at individual whose identity and residence are known may support a well-founded fear). 32 That she stayed for three years before fleeing cuts against her claim that she feared the threats and that they might be carried out. See Castillo, 951 F.2d at 1122 (five year undisturbed residence after single interrogation is substantial evidence that threatening parties lacked will or ability). But the BIA cannot proceed as though there were a rule that if the departure was a considerable time after the first threat, then the fear was not genuine and well founded. Practical, individualized consideration is required. One whose family had lived in a place for generations might not flee at the first sign of danger. Hitler took over as Chancellor of Germany in 1933, after forty years of growing political anti-Semitism, but many Jews did not flee until 1938, and many remained after that, in their homeland of many centuries, hoping for the best. Also, this case does not involve a threat followed by several years of peace. The threats were repeated, and as Mrs. Gallegos's erection of iron bars around her house shows, her perception of the danger was that it was increasing. 33 There is nothing in the record to support the BIA's doubts that the Sandinistas had the power to carry out these threats. Mrs. Gallegos's family had suffered from considerable political violence. Her brother was arrested for political reasons. Her husband and sister-in-law were beaten and arrested for related reasons. I have a lot of relatives who are dead, crazy, and without hands. Her Somozista stepfather did not remain being a judge because a bomb exploded and he ... he was left deaf mute from one ear and torn, although it is not clear from the record who bombed her stepfather. The violence actually committed against other members of Mrs. Gallegos's family, and repetition of threats to her, made her fear of violence well founded. Hernandez-Ortiz v. INS, 777 F.2d 509, 515 (9th Cir.1985) (violence against family members supports finding that petitioner's life is in danger); Prasad, 47 F.3d at 340 (physical attacks on an applicant's family support a well-founded fear if the pattern of persecution is tied to the petitioner). 34 At the time of the hearing, a visa was waiting for Mrs. Gallegos at the American Consulate in Nicaragua, yet she was afraid to go back to Nicaragua and get it. It is not clear why the INS continues to oppose her asylum case in the face of this undisputed fact. Her fear of returning to pick up her visa is evidence not only that her fear was genuine, which the INS does not contest, but also that it was well founded. Either she is a fool not to solve her legal problem by a trip home, or she is prudent and sufficiently expert on Nicaraguan conditions to form a sound opinion of the dangers there. It is reasonable to suppose that she is no fool, and has a pretty good sense of whether a trip home to pick up her visa could safely be expected to be a round trip. Her fear of traveling home for the paper which would solve her legal problem is evidence, albeit rebuttable, that the trip would be dangerous. There was no evidence pointing the other way. 35 Mrs. Gallegos suffered economic persecution in addition to threats of physical violence. Her ration card was taken away, and her business's ability to buy inventory was taken away, on account of her political opinion. See Kovac v. INS, 407 F.2d 102, 107 (9th Cir.1969) (a probability of deliberate imposition of substantial economic disadvantage upon an alien for reasons of ... political opinion is sufficient to support a claim of asylum); cf. Ubau-Marenco v. INS, 67 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir.1995) (no economic persecution where applicant offers no evidence that denial of fabric for factory was the result of political opinion, and there was a widespread fabric shortage). Her family land was taken for political reasons. See id. (seizure of family land can contribute to a finding of past persecution). 36 The evidence of past persecution presented by Mrs. Gallegos, including the multiple and continuing death threats, marking her house, taking away of her ration card and means to buy inventory, and harassing and taking away the property of her family, all on account of political opinion, compel a finding of past persecution. The past persecution was not sufficiently atrocious to entitle Mrs. Gallegos to asylum regardless of whether she had a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Acewicz, 984 F.2d at 1062 (even when there is little likelihood of future persecution, the BIA may grant asylum where applicant has suffered under atrocious forms of persecution). The past persecution did, however, give rise to a presumption that a fear of future persecution was well-founded. See Singh v. Ilchert, 69 F.3d 375, 379 (9th Cir.1995) (a showing of past persecution creates a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution rebuttable only by a showing that conditions have changed to such an extent that the inference is invalid). The BIA nevertheless concluded that there exists from the record before us no likelihood of persecution in the future in view of the change of government in Nicaragua. 37 The BIA determination that the change of government obviated the likelihood of persecution was made without giving Mrs. Gallegos a fair opportunity to present evidence to the contrary. The BIA could mean either of two propositions by its determination: that the threat was eliminated by the time of Mrs. Gallegos's hearing before the IJ or that the threat dissipated over the four years, seven months between her hearing and the BIA decision. 38 If the BIA viewed the record as of the date of Mrs. Gallegos's hearing, then there was no substantial evidence for its conclusion. The record was replete with evidence that whatever likelihood of persecution had existed before, remained. Petitioners submitted numerous newspaper clippings and other materials, datelined Nicaragua and describing what was happening during the three months between Violeta Chamorro's election and her inauguration. The clippings said that Chamorro was allowing the Sandinistas to retain control of the army and the security forces. The security forces would include the soldiers who told Ms. Gallegos it was going to be very bad for me should I not join. The CDS, which continually threatened to disappear Ms. Gallegos with a bomb, was presumably still intact. Nicaragua's rejected president Daniel Ortega was quoted as saying the day will come when we return to govern this country from above. Meanwhile we will govern from below. According to the evidence, almost every Sandinista program, including the military draft, is protected by the constitution. The Sandinistas also control the Supreme Court through appointments that will last until 1993. The record was replete with uncontradicted evidence that the Sandinistas would retain their power to persecute political opponents despite the election. In Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir.1993), as in this case, the change of government occurred prior to the hearing, and the petitioner presented evidence that the threat continued despite the change. But in the case at bar, unlike Acewicz, there was no evidence to the contrary, and the change of government occurred only two days before the hearing. 39 The BIA said that Mrs. Gallegos and her daughter had provided no evidence of any instance in which the Sandinistas, following their removal from power, have harmed or sought to harm them or any other individual in a similar circumstance. If the BIA meant to refer to the time up to Mrs. Gallegos's hearing, this inference from lack of evidence would be specious. Daniel Ortega had been out of the presidency for only two days at the time of the hearing. Two days would not be not enough time for the Sandinistas to harm their political enemies subsequent to the Chamorro inauguration, and for evidence to get back to Mrs. Gallegos and her lawyer to be presented at the hearing. Obviously the Sandinistas could not have harmed Mrs. Gallegos during those two days, because she was in the United States seeking asylum, not in Nicaragua. 40 From the context, and this remark about what happened after the Sandinistas lost the presidency, it appears that the BIA meant not that the threat to Mrs. Gallegos was gone at the time of the hearing, April 27, 1990, but rather that the threat dissipated during the pendency of her appeal, decided November 18, 1994. It may have. But there is no evidence in the record for that proposition, and taking administrative notice of it deprived Mrs. Gallegos of due process of law. Castillo-Villagra v. INS, 972 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir.1992). 41 The BIA mentioned Castillo-Villagra in a footnote, in words which suggest that it misread the case. 42 As the respondents have acknowledged this change of government, we do not find any violation of the respondents' due process rights under the reasoning of Castillo-Villagra v. INS, 972 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir.1992), in our response. See Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir.1993). 43 We held in Castillo-Villagra that the BIA could take administrative notice of the change of government but could not, without notice and a hearing, take notice that the change eliminated the danger to the petitioner. Id. at 1029. The footnote suggests that the BIA had it backwards, concluding that the petitioner was entitled to contest whether there had been a change of government, but when that was conceded, not to contest the effect of the change on the danger to her. Mrs. Gallegos presented evidence that the threat to her would continue indefinitely into the future despite the change of government. See id. (It may be that, were the petitioners given an opportunity to respond to the INS view of the effect of the change in government, they could make no case for a well-found fear.... But the agency should not have assumed away petitioners' case.) 44 If the BIA decided the case on the basis of the evidence as it stood when Mrs. Gallegos's hearing concluded, then there was no due process violation, but also no substantial evidence for the BIA's conclusion, that Mrs. Gallegos lacked a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her political opinion. If the BIA decided the case based on political developments during the four-and-a-half years subsequent to the hearing, then the BIA may have been correct substantively, but Mrs. Gallegos was deprived of her constitutional right to be heard on whether those changes obviated the danger that she would be persecuted. See Getachew v. INS, 25 F.3d 841, 847 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that where an INS appellate brief requested that the BIA take notice of a change in government, but did not adequately surmise petitioner of what facts were to be noticed and how they were relevant to his case, petitioner did not have an adequate opportunity to respond). If that is what the BIA did, then the case is indistinguishable from Castillo-Villagra, where the BIA denied asylum based on political changes after the hearing, without giving petitioner notice and an opportunity to be heard on whether those changes eliminated the danger to her. 45 The BIA need not limit itself to the state of affairs as of the time the hearing ended. As we held in Castillo-Villagra, it may take administrative notice of a subsequent election result and change of government. But if petitioner's case makes it plausible that the threat of political persecution would remain despite that change, then petitioner is entitled to notice that the BIA proposes to treat the threat as dissipated, and an opportunity to be heard on whether that is so. Taking notice of legislative, undebatable facts, such as an election result and new parliamentary majority, does not require notice and an opportunity to be heard, but taking administrative notice of post-hearing debatable adjudicative facts without warning and an opportunity to offer rebuttal denies due process of law. Castillo-Villagra, 972 F.2d at 1028-29.