Court Opinion

ID: 9491322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:10:39.570882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:39.825920
License: Public Domain

FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge
dissenting:
Stoyanov asks us to focus upon the error in the State Department’s letter to the exclusion of all of the other evidence adverse to his case. However, as I see it, the State Department’s single misstatement of fact does not require granting of the petition. The State Department also pointed out that Stoyanov’s beliefs are in the political mainstream in Bulgaria, that serious political opposition leaders now live tranquilly in Bulgaria, and that much has changed for the better in that country. Moreover, the BIA cited additional evidence, and put no undue weight on the then admitted fact that his obtaining of a passport in 1989 was an unusual privilege.
We are told in Stoyanov’s brief, without citation to the record, that in October of 1989, when he actually got his passport, it was not difficult to obtain one. But his serious trouble with the authorities did not even commence until more than a year after that, when he was arrested for putting posters on government buildings. At any rate, he did not leave Bulgaria until December of 1990, and no steps were ever taken to relieve him of the passport or to prevent his exiting the country. Finally, his own brief to the BIA stated that he “left Bulgaria at a time when it was very unusual to obtain a passport.” In other words, the error in question was not presented to the BIA; it was a nonissue. Stoyanov now acts as if the error were the linchpin of his case, but I do not believe that we should even consider an issue upon which Stoyanov actually misled the BIA. His approach was a far cry from presenting a question to the BIA for decision. See Rashtabadi v. INS, 23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (9th Cir.1994).
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.