Opinion ID: 2997094
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien can remain in the United States if she fears persecution in her native country either by petitioning for asylum or by applying for withholding of removal. To be eligible for asylum, however, an alien must file her petition within one year of her arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). An alien’s failure to file a timely application for asylum will be excused only if the applicant can show “either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing.” Id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). An alien who did not file in a timely manner and who has shown neither “changed circumstances” nor “extraordinary circum- 1 The IJ also denied Ms. Vladimirova’s request for relief under the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c) and 208.18(b)(2), but Ms. Vladimirova does not raise that issue in this review. See Robin v. Espo Eng’g Corp., 200 F.3d 1081, 1088 (7th Cir. 2000) (claims not raised on appeal are abandoned). 8 No. 03-1852 stances,” however, still may be eligible for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.3(b). To obtain asylum, an alien must show that she cannot return to her native country because of “persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). If the alien can establish that she suffered past persecution, then she is entitled to a “rebuttable presumption” that she has a “wellfounded fear of future persecution” and so should be granted asylum. Yadegar-Sargis v. INS, 297 F.3d 596, 601 (7th Cir. 2002); see 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). The Government can rebut that presumption by showing either that there has been a “fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution” in her native country or that the alien “could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part” of the country. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(A) & (B). To be eligible for withholding of removal, an alien must establish that “it is more likely than not” that she again will be persecuted if forced to return to her native country. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); Ahmad v. INS, 163 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 1999). If she can establish that she suffered past persecution, she is entitled to a presumption that her “life or freedom would be threatened in the future” in her native country. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i). The Government can rebut that presumption by showing either that there has been a “fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant’s life or freedom would not be threatened” upon return or that the alien “could avoid a future threat to his or her life or freedom” by relocating to another part of the country. Id. § 208.16(b)(1)(i)(A) & (B). An applicant who cannot meet the burden of showing a well-founded fear of persecution to No. 03-1852 9 prove eligibility for asylum necessarily fails to meet the higher burden of showing the probability of persecution required to qualify for withholding of removal. See Ahmad, 163 F.3d at 463. Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms without opinion, we review the decision of the IJ. See Ememe v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 446, 450 (7th Cir. 2004). We shall affirm the IJ’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Ememe, 358 F.3d at 451.
Ms. Vladimirova asks us to review the IJ’s conclusion that she did not show “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to excuse her failure to file a timely petition for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). The Government argues, however, that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of her petition for asylum, and, at oral argument, Ms. Vladimirova agreed. In a companion case also decided today, we join our sister circuits in concluding that the plain language of § 1158(a)(3)—“[n]o court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph [(a)(2)]”—bars judicial review of the BIA’s denial of asylum under § 1158(a)(2)(D). See Zaidi v. Ashcroft, No. 03-3062, slip op. at 4-5 (7th Cir. July 26, 2004); see also Haoud v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 201, 205 (1st Cir. 2003); Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 544 (6th Cir. 2003); Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 185 (3d Cir. 2003); Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2003); Fahim v. United States Attorney Gen., 278 F.3d 1216, 1218 (11th Cir. 2002); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2001); Ismailov v. Reno, 263 F.3d 851, 855 (8th Cir. 2001). 10 No. 03-1852
Ms. Vladimirova also argues that she is entitled to withholding of removal. Section 1158(a)(3) does not bar our review of the IJ’s denial of that relief. See Tarrawally, 338 F.3d at 185-86. The IJ assessed only Ms. Vladimirova’s claim for asylum, however, and concluded that she did not qualify for withholding of removal because she had not met the lesser burden of proving her eligibility for asylum. Ms. Vladimirova submits that the IJ did not evaluate her eligibility for asylum under the proper standard and that, accordingly, we should grant her petition for review to allow the IJ to reconsider her eligibility for withholding of removal. Ms. Vladimirova contends that in her testimony she demonstrated that she had experienced persecution in Bulgaria when she was beaten so severely as to cause a miscarriage. Because the IJ did not discredit that testimony, she argues, she should have been afforded the benefit of the rebuttable presumption of a future threat, as directed by 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i). Ms. Vladimirova submits that the Government did not present evidence sufficient to rebut that presumption. She also challenges the IJ’s conclusions that Protestants can now practice freely in Bulgaria and that, even if some persecution remains, she could avoid it by returning to a different area of Bulgaria. Ms. Vladimirova points out that the same government remains in power and that religious intolerance continues unabated. Finally, she points out that the State Department’s failure to mention Word of Life in the 2000 Report on International Religious Freedom in Bulgaria is likely because the church is so small, not because church members are no longer persecuted. We agree that the IJ failed to analyze properly whether Ms. Vladimirova suffered past persecution and thus failed to afford her the benefit of the shifting burden of proof. The IJ’s statement that conduct must involve a “threat to the life No. 03-1852 11 or freedom of the victim,” A.R. 85, is simply wrong. Indeed, we recently emphasized in Dandan v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2003), that acts of persecution must “ ‘rise above the level of mere harassment’ ” but need not be so severe as to constitute “ ‘threats to life or freedom.’ ” Id. at 573 (quoting Ambati v. Reno, 233 F.3d 1054, 1060 (7th Cir. 2000)). The physical violence suffered by the petitioner—a beating so severe that it caused a miscarriage—certainly rises above the level of mere harassment and qualifies as proof of past persecution. See, e.g., Kossov v. INS, 132 F.3d 405, 409 (7th Cir. 1998) (Rovner, J., concurring) (opining that beating resulting in miscarriage could justify finding of past persecution). Compare Asani v. INS, 154 F.3d 719, 723 (7th Cir. 1998) (remanding to BIA to reconsider whether a detention involving the deprivation of sufficient food and water and a beating resulting in the loss of two teeth constituted past persecution), and Vaduva v. INS, 131 F.3d 689, 690 (7th Cir. 1997) (determining that a beating in which petitioner was punched and had his face bruised and his finger broken constituted past persecution), with Dandan, 339 F.3d at 57374 (concluding that petitioner’s three-day detention and beating resulting in a “swollen” face did not constitute past persecution where petitioner did not provide specific details to indicate the severity of the beating), and Skalak v. INS, 944 F.2d 364, 365 (7th Cir. 1991) (determining that two three-day detentions involving interrogation but no injury did not constitute past persecution). Moreover, the cases upon which the IJ relied in concluding that Ms. Vladimirova did not suffer persecution in Bulgaria are inapposite. The first case upon which the IJ relied, Zalega v. INS, 916 F.2d 1257 (7th Cir. 1990), has no bearing on Ms. Vladimirova’s petition. In Zalega, we approved the BIA’s denial of asylum because the petitioner, although incarcerated, experienced no mistreatment, see 916 F.2d at 1260; Ms. Vladimirova was beaten so severely as to cause a miscar12 No. 03-1852 riage. The IJ relied on Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16 (BIA 1989), but that case involved a different standard than the one relevant to a petition for asylum. In Chen, the BIA expressly granted Chen’s petition on “humanitarian” grounds after finding that he had not proven his status as a refugee but statutorily was eligible for asylum “in the exercise of discretion.” Id. at 20-21. Finally, the IJ compared the persecution of Ms. Vladimirova to that of the petitioner in Asani. In Asani, however, we reversed the BIA’s denial of asylum because the BIA had applied an incorrect standard. See Asani, 154 F.3d at 723. Moreover, in doing so, we questioned “the BIA’s conclusion that the harm Asani suffered did not cause ‘serious injuries,’ ” when he was deprived of sufficient food and water and had his teeth knocked out during a beating. Id. Thus, the IJ critically mis-stepped and mis-stated this court’s decision when he suggested that the “higher” level of mistreatment in Asani did not constitute persecution. As a result, the IJ’s analysis of Ms. Vladimirova’s claim was fatally flawed. In sum, because the IJ credited Ms. Vladimirova’s testimony but failed to recognize that she had suffered persecution, Ms. Vladimirova never received the benefit of the presumption of a future threat that the Government bears the burden of rebutting. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i). Further, the IJ did not believe Ms. Vladimirova’s statement that she could not avoid persecution in Bulgaria by relocating to another part of the country, but the 2000 Department of State Report on International Religious Freedom in Bulgaria (the “2000 Report”) makes clear that harassment of those practicing unsanctioned religions is spread throughout the country. In any event, the 2000 Report—which states in part that the Government restricts the practice of some religions that are not registered— hardly demonstrates that individuals of Ms. Vladimirova’s religious beliefs are free from persecution. The fact that No. 03-1852 13 Word of Life was not mentioned in the report and that Ms. Vladimirova worshiped with only a small group does not imply that the religion does not exist or is not persecuted; the report discusses only the experiences of Muslims, Jews, Roman Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. There is no evidence in the 2000 Report that Word of Life has been registered with the Bulgarian Government and that its adherents may practice freely. Ms. Vladimirova’s decision to worship with a “mainline” denomination in this country is equally irrelevant; her reasons for not worshiping with other Word of Life members reflect a practical adjustment, given her inability to locate a Word of Life group where she lives in this country.