Opinion ID: 1236566
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act

Text: BinRashed challenges the agency's denial of his request for withholding of removal under the INA, which prohibits the removal of a person to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened... because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). BinRashed contends that while living in Yemen he suffered persecution on account of his father's political views and that if returned to Yemen he will suffer persecution or torture in light of his father's recently enhanced and conspicuous political activism. His assertions may be analyzed as claims of persecution on account of imputed political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Cf. Mema v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 412, 416-17 (7th Cir.2007) ([A]sylum is available to persons who have been persecuted based on imputed political opinion, including situations where a persecutor attributes the political opinion of one or more family members to the asylum applicant.... Sometimes this situation is described as persecution based on membership in a social group  i.e. the family group  but in either case the necessary proof is the same. (emphasis omitted)); Iliev v. INS, 127 F.3d 638, 642 n. 4 (7th Cir.1997) (treating petitioner's family as social group). In addition to establishing the motive underscoring his mistreatment, an applicant for withholding of removal must also demonstrate a clear probability of harm  i.e., that persecution is more likely than not. Firmansjah v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 598, 605 (7th Cir.2005). Indeed, [t]he INA does not require withholding if an applicant simply `might or could be subject to persecution.' Mabasa v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir.2006) (quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 422, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984)). There are two methods by which an applicant can establish that it is more likely than not that his life or freedom will be threatened. [I]f an applicant demonstrates that she suffered past persecution in the proposed country of removal, `it shall be presumed that the applicant's life or freedom would be threatened in the future in the country of removal on the basis of the original claim.' Firmansjah, 424 F.3d at 605 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)). The government may rebut this presumption by showing a fundamental change in country conditions or that the applicant can safely and reasonably relocate within the country to avoid persecution. Id. ; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). In the absence of evidence of past persecution, an applicant may meet his burden by offering evidence of a clear probability of suffering future persecution if removed. Firmansjah, 424 F.3d at 606; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2) (An applicant who has not suffered past persecution may demonstrate that his or her life or freedom would be threatened in the future in a country if he or she can establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion upon removal to that country.). We address BinRashed's claim under both methods of proof.
BinRashed contends that he is entitled to a presumption of future persecution because he was previously subjected to detention, arrest, interrogation, illegal search, confiscation of property, and surveillance at the hands of the Yemeni government. The IJ accepted these allegations as true, but concluded that they did not rise to the level of persecution. We conclude that the IJ's finding is supported by substantial evidence. At the outset, we observe that many of the acts detailed above were directed at BinRashed's father, not BinRashed. But the focus of our inquiry must be whether BinRashed personally suffered persecution. See Mabasa, 455 F.3d at 746. Although the whole family was detained just after the civil war while en route to visit relatives in the north, the officials told the women and children (which presumably included BinRashed who was then 13 or 14 years of age) that they were free to go, but the women and children declined to leave out of concern for the men. BinRashed attributed his only other detention, of less than three hours, to the length of his hair and skin color, not to his father's political opinion. But even if that detention were on account of a protected ground, it did not rise to the level of persecution because it was brief and did not result in physical harm. See Boci v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 762, 767 (7th Cir.2007) ([S]hort detentions or detentions without physical abuse seem to have been less apt to reach the `persecution' threshold required by this court.) (quoting Diallo v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 687, 698 (7th Cir.2004)); Bejko v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 482, 485 (7th Cir.2006) (finding that an applicant's two-week detention during which he received minimal food and water did not compel a finding of past persecution); Dandan v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 567, 574 (7th Cir.2003) (finding that a three-day detention involving interrogations, deprivation of food, and beatings did not compel a finding of past persecution). Additionally, although Rashed was arrested and interrogated on several occasions, BinRashed cannot claim similar treatment. Officials threatened to arrest him on one occasion, in Rashed's place, but did not carry out that threat. Of course, we must consider all the mistreatment BinRashed suffered as a whole, see Bejko, 468 F.3d at 486, but even in doing so, we do not find the other mistreatment sufficient to compel a finding of persecution. The IJ was permitted to conclude that the other indignities BinRashed suffered at the hands of the Yemeni government  the taking of his family's second home for minimal compensation, unprovoked traffic stops, the wiretapping of the family's phone  were more in the nature of harassment than persecution. Accordingly, we affirm the agency's conclusion that BinRashed did not suffer past persecution.
We next turn to BinRashed's arguments regarding his claim of future persecution. Although many of BinRashed's attacks on the IJ's reasoning are too trivial to merit discussion, we agree with BinRashed's view that the IJ and BIA failed to discuss critical record evidence, which bore upon his entitlement to withholding of removal. In particular, we are troubled by three key conclusions in the IJ's opinion, which suggest that the IJ overlooked key pieces of evidence: (1) a conclusion that aside from Mawari's and BinRashed's testimony there was absolutely no independent corroborative evidence that the son of a person adverse to the government might be persecuted in his father's stead; (2) a finding of absolutely no independent evidence relating to the government having any interest in [BinRashed's] father; and (3) a determination that there was no independent evidence other than what [BinRashed] states that his father's activities would cause [BinRashed] difficulty today. These conclusions figured heavily in the IJ's assessment of Mawari's testimony, and in the ultimate conclusion that, despite Mawari's expert opinion, BinRashed would not be likely to face persecution if removed. BinRashed notes that, contrary to the IJ's assertion, there was independent evidence that BinRashed, as a son of a person adverse to the government, might be persecuted in his father's place. We know that before BinRashed left the country, on one occasion, officials threatened to arrest him when his father could not be found. Such prior unfulfilled threats may be indicators of future persecution. Bejko, 468 F.3d at 486 (`[U]nfulfilled threats will fall within that category of past experience more properly viewed as indicative of the danger of future persecution.') (quoting Boykov v. INS, 109 F.3d 413, 416 (7th Cir.1997)). Corroborating evidence can also be found in the country condition reports. The 2004 report provided that, [i]n some cases where a criminal suspect was at large, security forces detained a relative while the suspect was being sought. Detention of the family member continued while the concerned families negotiated compensation for the alleged wrongdoing. Again, the State Department observed that in 2005, police forces routinely detained relatives of suspects while the suspect was being sought.... According to HOOD [National Organization for Defending Rights and Freedoms], over 100 such cases were reported throughout the country during the year. But, the IJ and BIA failed to even acknowledge this evidence. Likewise, the IJ and BIA disregarded evidence that Rashed is currently wanted by the government and that his present political involvements would cause his son difficulty today. Specifically, the Chairman of Yemeni Human Rights Watch submitted a letter confirming that Rashed and his family are wanted by the government: [W]e have obtained credible information from our own secret resources in Yemen stating that the Yemeni Authorities have listed the names of [the leaders of the Southern Democratic Assembly] as wanted by the political security forces, and these include Rashed and his family, including his wife, daughter, and his son Rashed. The names and pictures are circulated in all ports of the country. The Chairman closed by stating that BinRashed's return to Yemen is a very big risk to his life. This letter, of undisputed authenticity, provides specific and credible evidence that the Yemeni government is interested in learning Rashed's and BinRashed's whereabouts and that they could not reenter the country undetected. See Adekpe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 525, 532-33 (7th Cir.2007) (noting that letters sent to asylum applicant from family members stating that government had inquired into applicant's whereabouts bolstered applicant's claim of past persecution). The letter, coupled with BinRashed's threatened arrest and the State Department's finding that family members of criminal suspects are detained in their stead, provide evidence that BinRashed would be identified and detained upon return to Yemen, at least until his father could be located. And, given that his father is presently safely residing in the U.K., BinRashed could not depend on his father's quick return to Yemen to effectuate his release. This evidence suggests to us a colorable basis for concluding that BinRashed's freedom would be compromised upon return to Yemen, a condition that may mandate withholding of removal. But, inexplicably, neither the IJ nor BIA addressed the implications of BinRashed's prior threatened arrest, the reports on the treatment of the relatives of persons wanted by the police, or the letter from Yemeni Human Rights Watch. Failing to do so was error. See Agbor v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 499, 504 (7th Cir.2007) (The BIA ignored this evidence, and that is something it is not permitted to do.); Mema, 474 F.3d at 419 (An applicant for asylum is entitled to a reasoned analysis, not one which wholly disregards relevant, probative evidence.); Diallo, 381 F.3d at 695 (An immigration judge may not simply ignore record evidence that favors the applicant's case.). In addition, given the IJ's view of Mawari's testimony as uncorroborated and based on naked speculation, the letter and evidence in the country reports might have recast Mawari's testimony in a more favorable light, potentially altering the whole complexion of BinRashed's case. Because the agency disregarded critical and probative evidence in support of BinRashed's claims, we find that the IJ's and BIA's decisions are not supported by substantial evidence. See Agbor, 487 F.3d at 504 ([T]he BIA's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and must be vacated. The BIA disregarded key evidence that is specific to the petitioners' case, relied on background evidence that is only generally to the contrary, and then faulted the petitioners for failing to offer specific evidence overcoming the background evidence.); Gjerazi, 435 F.3d at 813 (Gjerazi is entitled to a well-reasoned, documented, and complete analysis that engages the evidence he presented, particularly the ample evidence demonstrating a political motivation for his persecution. The IJ's decision falls far short of this standard, and we hold that his conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence in the record.). We therefore vacate the BIA's denial of BinRashed's request for withholding of removal under the INA. In doing so, we offer no opinion as to the ultimate merit of BinRashed's claims and leave it to the agency to address the overlooked evidence in the first instance. See Durgac v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 849, 851-52 (7th Cir.2005) ([P]etitions for review will be granted when the court concludes that there is more that must be done at the agency level before a final conclusion on an asylum application is possible.); Niam v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir.2004) (Is the probability of persecution `clear'? That is for the immigration authorities to decide in the first instance in a proceeding free from the errors of the immigration judge that, taken as a whole, deprive the order of removal of a rational basis. The order must be vacated and the case returned to the immigration service for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.).