Opinion ID: 690773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 3 Florante De Leon and his family 1 seek asylum under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158 or, in the alternative, withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1253(h). We reverse the asylum determination, and therefore do not reach the withholding of deportation determination. We conclude that the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum was not supported by substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1105a(a)(4). 4 Mr. De Leon, whose stage name was Florante, was a well known folk singer in the Philippines. The newspaper clippings he submitted to the INS described him as a star. During the Marcos years, Mr. De Leon released seven popular, long-playing albums. He had a few gold records, and ran his own recording company. 5 According to Mr. De Leon's declaration, he was the first folk singer in the Philippines to sing songs critical of the Marcos regime. One of his clippings from a newspaper entertainment section refers to Florante as well loved then by millions of Filipinos for deep concern for Philippine nationalism, and well known with his long hair tied behind his neck and a moustache to go with. The clipping says he sang unforgettable songs which hit Marcos for refusing to vacate his throne. 6 During the 1986 election campaign, though, Mr. De Leon sang for Marcos, not Aquino. The Marcos campaign paid him. His campaign singing identified him publicly as a Marcos supporter. 7 After Aquino took power, Mr. De Leon continued to sing anti-government folk songs, as he had under Marcos. The administrative record includes English translations of some of Mr. De Leon's lyrics. They are indeed critical of the Aquino government. Based on the lyrics, it is highly plausible that the government and its supporters would be unhappy with Mr. De Leon's expression of his political opinions. 8 The Aquino government, according to Mr. De Leon's evidence, took steps to silence him in retaliation for his critical folk songs. He was charged, he claims falsely, with illegal assembly, inciting rebellion, sedition, and treason, because of a pro-Marcos political rally on May 1, 1986, which turned violent. Also, he and his wife received telephone calls threatening physical harm to him and his family if he continued to sing songs in public criticizing the Aquino government. 9 Mr. De Leon also testified that the Aquino government took steps against him economically. His records, he testified, were banned from being played on radio and television, and from being sold in stores. The ban was carried out by means of a memorandum from the Philippine Commission on Good Government, an organization which had the power to confiscate newspaper and radio and television assets. The memorandum allegedly told radio stations not to air Mr. De Leon's songs. 10 After the Philippine Commission on Good Government sequestered assets of the leading Philippine brewery, Mr. De Leon was scratched off the deal to sing in the beer commercials as he had done before. Some of Mr. De Leon's concerts were cancelled because the producers were afraid the government would have him in jail when he was scheduled to perform. Aquino supporters told a producer of a concert in an especially lucrative location that the place would be closed permanently if Mr. De Leon performed there. 11 In May of 1986, despite the pending criminal charges, Mr. De Leon was allowed to fly to the United States. He returned in June. Friends warned him that he should leave. Friends in the military called Mr. De Leon on the telephone and told him that he should leave, because otherwise he would be arrested. He left in August. He had no trouble getting out, even though he was famous and most probably was recognized. 12 Mr. De Leon's wife and children remained in the Philippines. He had a return ticket. Then Mrs. De Leon received a phone call from the principal of her son's school. He told her that a stranger had tried to pick up her son. Because she had not authorized anyone other than her household help to pick up the boy, she believed this to be a kidnap attempt. There were also a number of threatening phone calls, which were followed by the appearance of two armed men at the De Leon house. They asked at the door for Mr. De Leon, and then parked outside the house most of every day for about a week. Mrs. De Leon believed that, despite her husband's absence, she and her family were still at risk, so she took her children and fled the country to join her husband. 13 Since getting out of the Philippines, the De Leons have been put in fear of going back. Mr. De Leon testified that he has received telephone calls saying that if he did not stop doing business with the Marcos poison, he would be killed. A friend wrote that he should find a way to stay in America because it is very dangerous for everyone who has been charged with opposing the present government. The letter mentioned an actress. She had been discussed in the same newspaper articles as Mr. De Leon, as a pro-Marcos entertainer. The letter said she was taken from her house and was kidnapped--she has been found already but with horrible marks all over. Mr. De Leon's request for asylum said that his lawyer had been assassinated. He attached a newspaper clipping about the murder by a leftist group of another prominent pro-Marcos person. 14 Neither Mr. nor Mrs. De Leon were happy about trading the lives they had led in the Philippines for their new lives in the United States. Mr. De Leon said that he found it very hard working eight hours a night as a hospital security guard for $3.50 an hour, instead of being a celebrity in the Philippines, recognized by nine out of ten people in the street. But, he testified I'd rather have this kind of life, than going back there and be killed. And make my kids orphans. Mrs. De Leon preferred her life with maids and a driver in the Philippines, to having to work in the United States. But, she testified, I'm scared to go home. 15 The evidence summarized above sets out a straightforward asylum case of a man forced to flee his country because of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his political opinions. We make no independent judgment on whether the government of the Philippines or its supporters act as Mr. De Leon's evidence suggests. Nor can we consider evidence which supporters of the Philippine government might have submitted, had they or that government been parties to the case. Our review is limited to whether there was substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the BIA's conclusion to the contrary. There was some evidence to support the BIA's view, and we must determine whether the evidence on that side of the case was substantial when taken with the record as a whole. 16 The most substantial evidence against Mr. De Leon was a 1988 letter from the State Department Office of Asylum Affairs. The State Department gave the opinion, based on country conditions rather than information about Mr. De Leon, that Mr. De Leon did not have a well-founded fear of persecution, and said: 17 Specifically, we have not been able to confirm the existence of any formal charges against the applicant. The Aquino government has only filed charges against opponents who it believes have violated laws, particularly those involved in anti-government violence and those who own sequestered assets. 18 This opinion is based on our analysis of country conditions and other relevant factors, plus an evaluation of the specific information provided in the application. We do not have independent information about this applicant. 19 The BIA decision took note of the State Department opinion, and distinguished prosecution for a criminal offense from persecution for political opinion. 20 The BIA decision, denying asylum because of lack of a well-founded fear of persecution, notes that Mr. De Leon left the country without hindrance in May of 1986, returned in June, and again left in August. The decision points out that the respondent was never bothered by anyone in the Philippines and was permitted to leave and return to the Philippines whenever he chose to do so. The BIA decision also says that Mr. De Leon presented no documentary evidence concerning the political situation in the Philippines or any evidence that would support his contention that he has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns to the Philippines. Because of what it calls the unexplained absence of such evidence, the BIA infers that Mr. De Leon's claim may be exaggerated or unfounded. The BIA also writes that there is no evidence in the record that anyone in the Philippines is interested in harming the respondent or his family. 21 The BIA does not find that Mr. De Leon was not telling the truth. It infers the possibility that his claim may be exaggerated or unfounded from what it terms the absence of documentary evidence, but it does not find that his claim is exaggerated or unfounded. The only express finding of credibility in the record is the one by the Immigration Judge. He found that Mr. and Mrs. De Leon were honest.