Court Opinion

ID: 9438872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 06:08:54.463169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:59.305046
License: Public Domain

CALLAHAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE,
dissenting:
I dissent from the majority’s holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) failed to provide a sufficiently individualized analysis of how changed country conditions will affect Mr. Gorceac and that therefore remand is required on his *21asylum and withholding of removal claims. I would hold that the State Department’s Advisory Opinion — which discussed how two other individuals who had previously been employed by the Moldavan Ministry of Foreign Affairs were not subject to persecution in Moldavia — was sufficiently individualized. Furthermore, I would hold that the Advisory Opinion, when combined with the State Department country report, provided sufficient evidence, under our deferential standard of review, to support the BIA’s determination that the government had rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 805 (9th Cir.2004) (remanding where the BIA did not make an individualized determination as to the effect of country conditions on the petitioner). Because I would affirm the BIA’s asylum decision, I would also affirm its withholding of removal decision and I would otherwise deny his petition.