Court Opinion

ID: 2965029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:21.499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:26.481606
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

            

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                           United States Court of Appeals 
                                For the First Circuit 
                                 ____________________

            No.  97-1546

                            BI SONG HUANG and LI MING AO,

                                     Petitioners,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                          PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
                           THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                            Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                      ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

                Allan A. Samson on brief for petitioner.
                _______________

                Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation,
                ______________________
            Civil  Division,  Department  of Justice,  Frank  W.  Hunger,
            Assistant  Attorney General,  Civil  Division, and  David  V.
                                                                _________
            Bernal, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for respondent.
            ______

                                 ____________________

                                  December 16, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Petitioners Bi Song Huang and Liu Ming
                      ___________

            Ao, a  married couple in  their twenties who are  citizens of

            the  People's Republic  of  China,  seek  review of  a  final

            deportation  order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

            Huang and  Ao  have  conceded  excludability,  but  requested

            asylum  and withholding of deportation.  An Immigration Judge

            on  December  13,  1995 found  them  excludable  because they

            possessed neither valid visas nor travel documents and denied

            the application for  asylum and  withholding of  deportation.

            The  Board of  Immigration Appeals  on  April 8,  1997, in  a

            careful decision,  disagreed  with  the  Immigration  Judge's

            determination  that petitioners  were not credible  but found

            that Huang had not established his claim (under which Ao also

            sought protection) for asylum and withholding of deportation.

                      Under  Section  208(b)  of  the  INA,  8  U.S.C.   

            1158(a),  the  Attorney   General,  in  her  discretion,   is

            authorized to  grant asylum to refugees.  Refugees are aliens

            who are unable or unwilling to return to their native country

            "because of persecution or a well-founded 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).   These two  grounds --  past persecution  or

            well  founded fear  of persecution  --  do not  apply to  all

            persecutions  or  fears,  but  only  to  those  in  the  five

                                         -2-
                                          2

            enumerated categories.  See Tokarska  v. INS, 978 F.2d 1 (1st
                                    ___ ________     ___

            Cir. 1992).

                      If  the determinations by  the BIA, whose decisions

            we review,  are supported  by substantial  evidence, we  must

            deny the petition.  See  INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
                                ___  ___    ______________

            481 (1992).   Here, Huang  argues that he suffered  from past

            persecution when  he was beaten  and lost his job  because he

            protested  the activities of his employer, a local government

            official.  But,  as the BIA  found, the protest was  over his

            employer's illegal activities (using prison labor  to produce

            goods), his employer was most likely corrupt, and "it appears

            more  likely  that  this  corruption  is  the  basis  for the

            punishment of  applicant, not applicant's  presumed political

            beliefs."   Accordingly, the  BIA determined,  Huang had  not

            shown  a  nexus  between his  political  beliefs,  the ground

            asserted  for asylum  based  on  past  persecution,  and  the

            actions taken by his employer.

                      As to Huang's  argument that he had  a well-founded

            fear of persecution,  the BIA found that Huang  had again not

            shown a  nexus between his  fear of persecution,  which might

            well be genuine, and his  political beliefs, nor had he shown

            that the  threat of  persecution was  country-wide.   The BIA

            concluded that Huang had not  met his burden of showing "that

            a reasonable  person in  his circumstances .  . .  would fear

            persecution  on  account   of  race,  religion,  nationality,

                                         -3-
                                          3

            membership  in  a  particular   social  group,  or  political

            opinion."  Because Huang failed to meet the lower standard of

            proof  for asylum,  he also  did  not meet  the higher  clear

            probability standard of  eligibility required for withholding

            of deportation.  See INS v.  Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 413 (1984)
                             ___ ___     ______

            (alien must establish a "clear probability" of persecution to

            avoid deportation under 8 U.S.C.   1253(h)).

                      The evidence of record unquestionably supports  the

            BIA's   findings.    Congress  has  chosen  to  restrict  the

            definition of asylum.  Not all who will face hardship if they

            return   to  their   native   countries  are   eligible   for

            consideration of asylum.  

                      The  decision  of  the Board  is  affirmed  and the

            petition is dismissed.

                                         -4-
                                          4