Court Opinion

ID: 9473444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:30:13.046601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:32.240700
License: Public Domain

PREGERSON, Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot say that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is supported by substantial evidence; therefore, I dissent.
We have explained that:
Review under the substantial evidence standard is not to be superficial or cursory. Rather, the court’s inquiry must be searching and careful, subjecting the agency’s decision to close judicial scrutiny. Further, the court is not confined to those portions of the record, if any, which the agency cites in support of its conclusions. The court is charged to review the record as a whole. Packer Transportation Co. v. United States, 596 F.2d 891, 894 (9th Cir.1979).
Memorial, Inc. v. Harris, 655 F.2d 905, 912 (9th Cir.1980).
The BIA’s decision, subjected to close judicial scrutiny, does not satisfy the substantial evidence standard because: (1) it is contradicted by the record, (2) it gives inadequate weight to petitioner’s testimony, and (3) it suffers from faulty reasoning.
FACTS
At his deportation hearing, Saballo-Cor-tez, a native of Nicaragua, conceded de-portability under § 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2) (1982), because he entered the United States illegally. However, he requested political asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 208.9 (1983).1
Before the immigration judge, Saballo-Cortez testified that he would be persecuted by the Nicaraguan authorities if he returned to Nicaragua. He asserted that, while in Nicaragua, because of his refusal to join the militia and the Comité de Sandi-nistas (Sandinista Committee), he was threatened and harassed by high level military personnel and other individuals. He testified that a high level military person known as “Caypal” had repeatedly threatened him. On two occasions, Caypal told Saballo-Cortez that unless he joined the militia or the Sandinista Committee he would be found dead in a field with his eyes filled with ants. Saballo-Cortez also testified that the authorities wanted him to join the Sandinista Committee because he had worked for an American company in its advertising department. Because of this experience, the Sandinistas hoped that he would be a propaganda organizer for the “revolution.” In addition to Caypal’s threats, Saballo-Cortez explained that he had been harassed by military personnel and others, including an employee of the Police Department and Comité de Sandinis-tas named “Carlos,” who came to Saballo-*1268Cortez’s door day and night, making sleep at home impossible.
Saballo-Cortez further testified that he was unable to obtain a work permit or a food ration card because of his refusal to join the Sandinistas.
The only documentary evidence that Sa-ballo-Cortez submitted was an alleged copy of a Nicaraguan government document accusing him of gun-smuggling against the Sandinista government. He explained that he had been detained for gun-smuggling, but that, in fact, he had not been involved in such activities. He asserted, however, that his life was in danger because the Sandinista government believed that he actually was involved in activities against its interests.
At the hearing, the immigration judge revealed that he had contacted the American embassy in Managua by telegram seeking corroboration for Saballo-Cortez’s gun-smuggling arrest. The embassy responded that the police authorities would not release information on arrest records to anyone but the person concerned, i.e., Saballo-Cortez, and that the embassy files had no record of Saballo-Cortez. The immigration judge then sua sponte admitted into evidence Saballo-Cortez’s purported arrest record for gun-smuggling and the embassy’s response to the judge’s inquiry. The immigration judge then denied Saballo-Cor-tez’s request for asylum and withholding of deportation.
On appeal, the BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s decisions. The BIA based its rulings on Saballo-Cortez’s failure to allege that he would be persecuted because of his “political opinion,” and on his alleged failure to meet his burden of demonstrating a “well-founded fear of persecution.”2
Saballo-Cortez then timely petitioned this court.
DISCUSSION
1. Substantial Evidence
Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1980 removed the granting of “withholding of deportation” from the BIA’s discretion. “The Board must withhold deportation if certain facts exist” and such decisions are reviewed for substantial evidence. Chavez v. INS, 723 F.2d 1431, 1432 (9th Cir.1984); McMullen v. INS, 658 F.2d 1312, 1316 (9th Cir.1981).3 The BIA’s decision relies upon three grounds. First, the BIA found that Saballo-Cortez did not allege that he would be persecuted because of his political opinion. Second, the BIA discounted his testimony because it lacked certain “corroboration.” Third, the BIA cited other factors contributing to its decision, including the fact that Saballo-Cortez obtained a Nicaraguan passport and exit visa. Because none of these grounds can withstand close scrutiny, the BIA’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence.
(a) Political Opinion
The BIA found that, even assuming that Saballo-Cortez had been threatened, he did not assert that such threats were made because of his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” as required by 8 U.S.C. § .1253(h). The majority agrees. However, a perusal of the transcript of the hearing before the immigration judge yields several instances when Saballo-Cortez or his attorney indicated clearly that his refusals to join the militia or the Sandinista Committee were based on his political opinion. For example, his attorney flatly said that Sabal-lo-Cortez was persecuted for his “political opinion.” Administrative Record (AR) 64. *1269In addition, other statements by Saballo-Cortez at the hearing indicate that his problems with Nicaraguan authorities stemmed from his refusal, for political reasons, to support the Sandinista effort. For example, he explained that he did not want to join the militia “[bjecause of the system,” AR 46, and that he had aroused the Sandi-nistas’ ire because he did not want to work “[f]or the revolution.” AR 48. His written application for asylum cites his adverse “political” views as a reason why he would be persecuted. AR 81. His aversion to the established political system is also indicated by his refusal to join the Sandinistas even in the face of their potential denial of a food ration card and work permit as well as in his refusal to produce propaganda for them. See, e.g., AR 51, 54.
This case should be remanded on this basis alone. It is impossible to discern the extent to which the BIA relied upon its erroneous finding that Saballo-Cortez had not alleged persecution based on his political opinion. See Zavala-Bonilla v. INS, 730 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir.1984); cf. Santana-Figueroa v. INS, 644 F.2d 1354, 1356 (9th Cir.1981) (case remanded because “[w]hen important aspects of the individual claim are distorted or disregarded, denial of relief is arbitrary.”) (footnote omitted).
(b) Saballo-Cortez’s Testimony
The BIA’s opinion gives insufficient weight to Saballo-Cortez’s testimony.
The BIA itself has previously explained that “although the [petitioner] may ultimately have the burden of persuasion, her own testimony may be the best — in fact the only — evidence available to her. It must, therefore, be accorded the most careful and objective evaluation possible, in the light of all available pertinent evi-dence____” Matter of Sihasale, 11 I. & N.Dec. 759, 762 (BIA 1966) (emphasis added); see also Matter of Dunar, 14 I. & N.Dec. 310, 319 (BIA 1973). We have also directed that a refugee’s testimony should be carefully considered because a person seeking asylum is often limited in the evidence he or she can obtain. Zavala-Bonil-la, 730 F.2d at 567; McMullen, 658 F.2d at 1319.
A refugee’s testimony may, however, be discredited in the same way as any other witness’s testimony — for example, by inconsistent statements or because of the witness’s demeanor. At the hearing before the immigration judge, there appeared to be an inconsistency between Saballo-Cor-tez’s testimony and his written asylum application. He testified that he traveled by air, with one stop, to Mexico en route to the United States. In his sworn application, however, he wrote that he had traveled through El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. The immigration judge noted this discrepancy in his decision, but did not expressly draw any conclusions from it. The immigration judge made no comments about Saballo-Cortez’s credibility or demeanor.4
*1270Moreover, there is no indication in the BIA’s opinion that Saballo-Cortez gave false testimony. What the BIA did, however, was to consider only Saballo-Cortez’s documentary evidence as “evidence” (alleged gun-smuggling incident) and to discount his oral testimony by suggesting that further corroboration is necessary. But this treatment is contrary to our decisions acknowledging the special difficulties encountered by refugees in obtaining corroboration. See Zavala-Bonilla, 730 F.2d at 567 (citing McMullen and a United Nations Handbook); cf. Reyes v. INS, 673 F.2d 1087, 1089-90 (9th Cir.1982) (corroborating evidence not required in motion to reopen; Board abused its discretion when it discounted petitioner’s affidavits without valid reason).
In any event, the BIA’s assertions regarding the corroboration that Saballo-Cortez should have supplied do not undermine his testimony. For example, Saballo-Cortez testified that he was threatened with death in a field with his eyes filled with ants. In discounting that testimony the BIA asserted that the position and authority of the man who had made the threat was not made clear and that “[tjhere is no evidence that the respondent will be killed by the unnamed security officer.” BIA Opinion at 3. But the record shows that Saballo-Cortez did in fact name the security officer, Caypal. Second, the BIA does not explain why Saballo-Cortez should have known the exact rank of the man who threatened him. Finally, it asks too much to require Saballo-Cortez to present evidence to “prove” that Caypal would indeed have killed him. Such unobtainable evidence is not required to prove a clear probability of persecution. See Zavala-Bonilla, 730 F.2d at 565; cf. Matter of Dunar, 14 I. & N.Dec. at 319. To require such evidence would make the asylum offers embodied in § 1158(a) and § 1253(h) hollow gestures.
To take another example, the BIA discounts Saballo-Cortez’s testimony of threats made against him by Sandinista officials by explaining:
He [Saballo-Cortez] admitted that military service was required in Nicaragua. Under the circumstances, the steps taken against him could be interpreted as legitimate legal sanctions.
BIA Opinion at 4 (emphasis added). This finding is unsupportable. Even if one characterizes Saballo-Cortez as a Nicaraguan army evader, it is hard to imagine how repeated threats, including a threat of being found dead in a field with one’s eyes filled with ants, could ever “be interpreted as legitimate legal sanctions.”
The BIA’s opinion should thus be reversed for failure to give fair consideration to Saballo-Cortez’s direct testimony. See Zavala-Bonilla, 730 F.2d at 567; McMul-len, 658 F.2d at 1317 (In reversing the BIA’s denial of asylum, we noted that the “INS did not submit evidence of its own which indicated that any of McMullen’s exhibits were inaccurate, nor did it submit independent evidence showing McMullen’s lack of credibility.”).5
(c) The BIA’s Remaining Evidence
The BIA’s other reasons include: (1) the official Nicaraguan letter submitted by Sa-ballo-Cortez was not accompanied by a certified translation; (2) Saballo-Cortez had not shown that he would have been unable to obtain food or work because of the Sandinista government’s refusal to issue him a food ration card or work permit; (3) Sabal-lo-Cortez’s detention for gun smuggling was of relatively short duration (3 hours) *1271and distant in time (3 years); and (4) Sabal-lo-Cortez was able to obtain a passport and visa to leave Nicaragua. Contrary to the majority’s assertion, these reasons should not support the BIA’s denial of withholding of deportation.
The lack of a certified translation is of no great moment because the BIA employs many translators who could have easily translated the letter. See Zavala-Bonilla, 730 F.2d at 565. Second, it is unreasonable to require Saballo-Cortez to show that the Sandinista’s refusal to issue a food ration card or work permit would result in his total inability to find food or work. Such refusal itself clearly indicates that the Sandinista authorities have made reprisals against him. Third, even if the alleged “gun-smuggling” accusation is remote in time, it is supported by documentary evidence.6 Finally, Saballo-Cortez’s ability to obtain a Nicaraguan passport does not constitute substantial evidence, standing alone, to support the BIA’s refusal to grant Saballo-Cortez withholding of deportation. The majority relies heavily on Saballo-Cortez’s ability to get a passport. This isolated fact is insufficient to support a denial of withholding of deportation. See Zavala-Bonilla, 730 F.2d at 565 n. 4 (asylum applicant need not show that government of nation from which applicant seeks asylum remembers him/her). To say that the authorities let Saballo-Cortez leave is a far cry from concluding that they would welcome his return.7
2. The Immigration Judge’s Ex Parte Inquiry
In denying Saballo-Cortez’s application, the BIA does not rely on the embassy’s response to the immigration judge’s ex parte inquiry. But, at the very least, the immigration judge’s inquiry may add to the potential danger Saballo-Cortez might face were he to return to Nicaragua. In support of this contention, Saballo-Cortez submitted two State Department letters — one to a District Director in Boston concerning a particular Salvadorean asylum applicant (El Salvador letter), and the other to the Commissioner of the INS concerning the general practice of sending unclassified inquiries to U.S. embassies overseas (Commissioner letter). Both letters indicate the State Department’s concern over the type of inquiry made by the immigration judge here.
The letters advise against such inquiries because foreign nationals are employed in embassy mailrooms. Hence, any unclassified documents sent to an embassy may come to the attention of the foreign government in which the embassy is located. In the Commissioner’s letter, the State Department advised that such requests should be sent through State Department classified channels and expressed concern that “the fact that an individual has applied for asylum may become known to local security agencies, thereby putting the applicant or his family in danger.”
The El Salvador letter stated: “These unclassified communications in all probability passed at some stage through the hands of Salvadorean nationals.” The letter also expressed concern that “there may be a risk that [the asylum applicant] faces some danger in El Salvador if her asylum application has become known to these violent forces____” Then, despite some question as to the applicant’s credibility, the letter nonetheless added, “we are not able to reassure ourselves that information relating to her asylum request did not fall into the hands of those who might wish to do her harm.”
Saballo-Cortez’s case may be even more precarious than the case discussed in the El Salvador letter. The embassy’s response here is unclear as to whether the Managua *1272police were specifically asked about Sabal-lo-Cortez. Thus, the immigration judge and embassy’s action may have alerted the Nicaraguan authorities to Saballo-Cortez’s application for asylum — and would constitute more of a signal than a routine passport application upon which the majority places so much weight.
The government’s only response to the potential danger to Saballo-Cortez from the embassy letter is that he failed to object at the hearing to the introduction of the letter in evidence. Given the surprising and unusual nature of the immigration judge’s action as well as the INS attorney’s objection to the letter, as a matter of fairness I believe we should address Saballo-Cortez’s contentions concerning the immigration judge’s inquiry. Absent a direct remand, I agree with the majority that Saballo-Cortez must be allowed to petition for reopening of his case to consider the additional danger to him that may have stemmed from the immigration judge’s unorthodox inquiry.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated in the foregoing discussion, I believe that the BIA’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence, and I would reverse it.

. Applications for asylum submitted during deportation hearings are considered both as asylum applications and applications for "withholding of deportation” under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h). 8 C.F.R. § 208.3(b) (1983). I disagree with the BIA’s refusal to withhold deportation because my review of the record convinces me that its decision is not supported by substantial evidence. I, therefore, need not address the more difficult question whether the BIA’s denial of asylum was an abuse of discretion. See INS v. Stevic, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 2492-501, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984), for distinction between standards governing INS decisions denying asylum and INS decisions denying withholding of deportation.

. Saballo-Cortez contends that the BIA applied the incorrect burden of proof in dismissing his petition. I agree with the majority that we need not reach the issue of the appropriate burden of proof, but for a different reason. I would not reach that issue because, for the reasons stated in the text, the BIA’s opinion lacks substantial evidence under any standard. See Zavala-Bonil-la v. INS, 730 F.2d 562, 564 n. 2 (9th Cir.1984) (burden of proof issue not considered because BIA’s opinion lacked substantial evidence regardless of the applicable burden of proof).

. The majority misstates the appropriate burden of proof when it suggests, majority opinion at 1262, that Saballo-Cortez must "present substantial evidence to compel a mandatory withholding of deportation."

. The immigration judge’s brief reference to the inconsistency regarding petitioner’s travels merely indicates that the original application "was possibly in error.” The immigration judge never relied on or even specifically made an adverse credibility determination based on that inconsistency or on anything else. The majority here, however, casts the immigration judge’s decision as a credibility determination. The majority then holds that it "must defer to an immigration judge's express and implied” credibility determination, majority opinion at 1266, concluding that ”[t]he findings of the immigration judge and the BIA that Saballo-Cortez’s uncorroborated beliefs were unbelievable is fully supported by the record.” Id. Nowhere in the record do I find a ruling by the immigration judge that Saballo-Cortez was not a credible witness. Moreover, the majority opinion might be misread to place the burden of credibility directly on the asylum applicant. Of course, no such burden exists.
Furthermore, a review of the record demonstrates that the majority finds an inconsistency where in fact there may only have been confusion that may have stemmed from the INS attorney's overbearing treatment of petitioner. AR 34, 56, 64-67, 73. See, e.g., Zavala-Bonilla, 730 F.2d at 566 (where BIA adverse credibility findings were the product of petitioner’s confusion due to lack of English speaking skills).
Finally, the "inconsistency" between petitioner's statement that he had traveled through several Central American countries en route to Mexico and his statement at the hearing that he traveled by air — with one stop — to Mexico, might have been easily explained. Saballo-Cor-*1270tez’s counsel repeatedly sought the opportunity to do so, but was rebuffed. AR 68, 71-72.

. Contrary to the majority, I do not think that McMullen is significant only where the immigration judge finds that a petitioner is credible and the BIA finds that he is not. Regardless of where the adverse credibility decision arises, to meet the substantial evidence standard, the BIA must logically explain its reasons for reaching its decision. Santana-Figueroa, 644 F.2d at 1356. See Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (requiring same even where standard of review is more deferential than substantial evidence); Prapavat v. INS, 662 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir.1981) (per cu-riam) (same).

. Copies of the letter submitted by Saballo-Cor-tez and the embassy's response to the immigration judge’s inquiry were submitted to us. The immigration judge’s inquiry to the American embassy in Managua was not made a part of the record.

. The majority, in footnote 4, misreads the views expressed in this dissent when it concludes that the dissent would shift the burden of proof. No such result is intended. Rather, this dissent is prompted by the failure of the BIA to support its ruling with substantial evidence.