Court Opinion

ID: 2965109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:32.814881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:05.151681
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1714

                                    JAARAH SALIFU,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                        ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF

                           THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            John J.  Loscocco and Barker,  Epstein and Loscocco  on brief  for
            _________________     _____________________________
        petitioner.
            Ellen   Sue  Shapiro,   Senior  Litigation   Counsel,  Office   of
            ____________________
        Immigration Litigation,  Civil Division, Department  of Justice, Frank
                                                                         _____
        W.  Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Richard M.
        __________                                                  __________
        Evans, Assistant Director, on brief for respondent.
        _____

                                 ____________________

                                  February 19, 1998
                                                     
                                 ____________________
                 Per Curiam.   Jaarah Salifu  appeals a  decision of  the
                 __________

            Board of Immigration Appeals,  which affirmed an  immigration

            judge's denial of her petition for asylum  and withholding of

            deportation.  8 U.S.C.    1158, 1253(h).  We affirm.

                 Salifu, a native of Ghana, attempted to enter the United

            States through John F. Kennedy Airport in New York on July 1,

            1993.  The Immigration and Naturalization Service paroled her

            into the United  States and began exclusion  proceedings.  At

            an exclusion  hearing on  November 9,  1993, Salifu  conceded

            excludability but  petitioned for  asylum and withholding  of

            deportation, alleging that she feared persecution in Ghana on

            the basis  of her political opinion.  Evidentiary hearings on

            the petition were held  before an immigration judge  on March

            30 and August 25, 1994.  

                 Salifu's asylum affidavit states that she was a regional

            organizing  secretary of  Ghana's New Patriotic  Party, which

            opposed the ruling junta in  an election on November 3, 1992.

            The  next   day,  Salifu  participated  in   a  demonstration

            protesting fraud  in the  election.   The demonstrators  were

            dispersed by  army  and police  officers,  and a  curfew  was

            imposed on the area.  On November 6, police officers arrested

            Salifu  at home  and  took  her to  a  police station.    The

            affidavit states  that  she was  held  for about  two  weeks,

            during which  time she was  raped twice.  Salifu  claims that

            the  officers told  her she  was  being held  because of  her

            participation in the demonstration.  

                 Salifu's affidavit states that a police officer told her

            that she would  be transferred to Accra, Ghana's capital, and

            that many prisoners sent there  never returned.  The  officer

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

            agreed to help  Salifu escape and took her  home.  Her mother

            suggested that  she go  to stay  with her  grandmother, which

            Salifu did.  

                 After  three months  with  her grandmother,  Salifu said

            that she  decided to contact a  friend in Accra.   The friend

            took  Salifu in  and promised  to  help her  escape from  the

            country.   The friend obtained  a passport for Salifu  in the

            name of  Marian Bigelow and  an airline ticket to  the United

            States.  The friend also gave her an envelope containing some

            photographs.    During  the  flight,  Salifu   destroyed  the

            passport, as her friend had instructed.

                 Salifu was  detained by an INS official  upon arrival in

            New  York.   The official  searched her  bag and  removed the

            envelope, which contained not only the photographs but also a

            handwritten  letter.   Salifu claims  she did  not  write the

            letter, does not  recognize the handwriting, and  was unaware

            that the  letter was  in her possession  until it  was found.

            The letter narrates the  experience of a New  Patriotic Party

            activist who  was  raped; the  details  are similar  in  some

            respects, but  not in others,  to Salifu's statements  in her

            asylum affidavit.  

                 The  INS   official  then  interrogated  Salifu.     She

            requested  an interpreter who spoke Twi, her native language,

            but  no interpreter  was  available.    Salifu  attempted  to

            converse  with the officer in English, although she maintains

                                         -4-
                                         -4-

            her English was and remains very poor.  The INS officer wrote

            Salifu's  answers out in affidavit form, which Salifu signed.

            This  "airport affidavit" was  admitted into evidence  at the

            hearing, as were the letter and photographs found in Salifu's

            possession and  a memorandum that  the INS officer  wrote "to

            file" after interviewing Salifu.

                 The   immigration  judge   wrote   a  detailed   opinion

            concluding  that Salifu's testimony  was not credible.   This

            conclusion was based on  Salifu's demeanor on the  stand, her

            inability   or  refusal  to   answer  simple  questions,  and

            inconsistencies  between  her  live  testimony,  the  airport

            affidavit, and  the affidavit filed in support  of her asylum

            petition.   The immigration  judge concluded that  Salifu not

            carried her  burden of proving  that she had  a "well-founded

            fear of  persecution" on  account of  her political  opinion.

            Alvarez-Flores v.  INS, 909 F.2d  1, 3  (1st Cir. 1990).   On
            ______________     ___

            appeal,  the  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals   affirmed  the

            immigration judge's decision.

                 Salifu's argument on  appeal comprises an attack  on the

            factfinder's credibility assessments, which must be upheld as

            long as  they are "reasonably grounded in  the record, viewed

            as a whole."   Cordero-Trejo v.  INS, 40  F.3d 482, 487  (1st
                           _____________     ___

            Cir.  1994).   We think  that the  immigration judge  was not

            clearly  erroneous in concluding  that Salifu's testimony was

            not convincing.  As the  judge noted, there were  "sufficient

                                         -5-
                                         -5-

            inconsistencies  in the  testimony,  asylum application,  and

            affidavitalone to warrant a negative finding of credibility."

                 Salifu argues that the Board violated the policy of  our

            decision  in Cordero-Trejo  v.  INS, 40  F.3d  482 (1st  Cir.
                         _____________      ___

            1994).   In Cordero-Trejo, we  reversed a  denial of  asylum,
                        _____________

            noting  that  the  immigration  judge's  adverse  credibility

            findings were not based on  "any perspectives offered by  the

            unique  vantage  point  of the  factfinder,  such  as witness

            demeanor, conflicting or confused testimony, etc., from which

            credibility is typically assessed."  Id. at 491.  Rather, the
                                                 ___

            immigration   judge   in    Cordero-Trejo   discredited   the
                                        _____________

            petitioner's testimony with criticisms that we thought either

            patently  unreasonable  or  directly refuted  by  documentary

            evidence in the record.  Nothing like that occurred here.

                 Salifu makes a  related legal argument that her own lack

            of credibility does  not dispose of her claim that  she has a

            well-founded fear  of  persecution.   Salifu quotes  language

            from Cordero-Trejo to  the effect that an  asylum applicant's
                 _____________

            testimony must  be evaluated  in the  context of  documentary

            evidence of the  political situation in the  applicant's home

            country.   Salifu is right that such  information is relevant

            to  determine whether a  petitioner's fear of  persecution is

            objectively "well-founded."   But as a threshold  matter, the

            asylum  petitioner  must   prove  that  she  has   an  actual

            subjective  fear of persecution.  INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
            __________                        ___    _______________

                                         -6-
                                         -6-

            U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987).  The subjective element of an asylum

            claim  must  be  "established  via the  applicant's  credible
                                                                 ________

            testimony that his fear is genuine."  Cordero-Trejo, 40  F.3d
            _________                             _____________

            at 491 (emphasis added).   In this regard a petitioner's lack

            of credibility can be dispositive, as it is here.

                 Salifu  argues  that  the  immigration  judge  erred  in

            admitting   into   evidence   the  handwritten   letter   and

            photographs seized  from her at  the airport, as well  as the

            INS  officer's "memorandum to file."  Because the photographs

            and memorandum do not appreciably strengthen the case against

            Salifu, we believe their admission,  if at all erroneous, was

            harmless.    Rodriguez-Hernandez v.  Miranda-Velez,  132 F.3d
                         ___________________     _____________

            848, 855 (1st Cir. 1998).

                 The  handwritten letter, on the other hand, was damaging

            to Salifu.  Salifu's sole objection below was that the letter

            was irrelevant.  This objection is without merit.  The letter

            tended  somewhat to  increase  the  chance  that  Salifu  was

            "coached in her  story" before  leaving Ghana,  and that  the

            story was  untrue in  material respects.   On appeal,  Salifu

            asserts   that  there  was  no  foundation  for  the  letter,

            specifically,  that there was  no independent proof  that the

            letter offered was  the one found in her  possession and that

            it had  not been  altered.  However,  this objection  was not

            made at the time  the letter was offered into evidence, so it

                                         -7-
                                         -7-

            is deemed waived.  United States v. Benavente-Gomez, 921 F.2d
                               _____________    _______________

            378, 385 (1st Cir. 1990).

                 Salifu makes other  arguments regarding the  definitions

            of  persecution and  political opinion.    Because the  Board

            correctly   affirmed  the   immigration  judge's   conclusion

            regarding credibility,  we do  not reach Salifu's  additional

            eligibility  arguments.   Because she  does  not qualify  for

            asylum, Salifu also does not meet the more demanding standard

            for  withholding of deportation.  Alvarez-Flores, 909 F.2d at
                                              ______________

            4.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -8-
                                         -8-