Chreng v. Gonzales , 471 F.3d 14 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 06-1481
    VANNARETH CHRENG,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ALBERTO R. GONZÁLES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
    THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
    Before
    Boudin, Chief Judge,
    Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
    and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
    Martin J. McNulty on brief for petitioner.
    Aixa Maldonado-Quiñones, Assistant United States Attorney, and
    Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, on brief for
    respondent.
    December 19, 2006
    CAMPBELL,       Senior    Circuit      Judge.       Vannareth    Chreng
    petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration
    Appeals    ("BIA"     or   "Board")       dismissing     his   appeal    from   an
    immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum
    and withholding of removal, and ordering his removal to Cambodia.1
    I.        Background
    A   Cambodian      national,         Chreng   applied   for     asylum,
    withholding of removal and relief under the CAT, see supra note 1,
    on January 15, 2002.       On November 19, 2004, he appeared before an
    IJ, and a removal hearing was held, during which he and the
    government submitted evidence. On November 19, 2004, the IJ orally
    announced a decision, later transcribed, ordering Chreng's removal
    to Cambodia.    Chreng appealed to the BIA.              On February 21, 2006,
    the BIA issued a per curiam order adopting and affirming the
    decision of the IJ and dismissing the appeal.                  The BIA rejected
    Chreng's motion to remand.          This petition followed.
    II.    The Hearing and the IJ's Decision
    A.   Evidence Presented
    Chreng was the only witness to testify at his removal
    hearing.       Additionally,        he     submitted     documentary     evidence,
    including a copy of his I-589 form, certain internet background
    1
    Chreng's further claim for relief under the Convention
    Against Torture ("CAT") was also denied; but as he does not address
    that claim in this petition for review, it is waived. See Frazier
    v. Bailey, 
    957 F.2d 920
    , 932 (1st Cir. 1992) (arguments not fully
    presented in appellate brief are waived).
    -2-
    information, including a 2004 statement from Madeleine Albright,
    newspaper clippings and public statements from the Sam Rainsy
    political party, to which he allegedly belonged.              The government's
    evidence    consisted   of   the    2003    Department   of    State   Cambodia
    conditions report indicating improved political conditions there.
    Chreng told the IJ that he was a 49-year-old male who
    came to the United States on January 24, 2001.           Married on November
    27, 1986, he left behind his wife and three children ages 19, 17,
    and 12.    He was born on January 3, 1957 and was thus about 18 years
    old at the time that Pol Pot took control of Cambodia.              His father
    and mother, uncle, and two older brothers were sent to "high
    Angka," which he said meant they had been murdered.               In March of
    1979, Chreng joined the Molinaka political party, which opposed Hun
    Sen, the Prime Minister of Cambodia and a key leader of the
    Cambodian People's Party.          Because of his opposition to Hun Sen,
    Chreng said, he was arrested by Vietnamese agents on December 26,
    1979 and sent to prison at Trapeang Thlong for a period of five
    years.    In March 1988, he was arrested once again and sent to fight
    the Khmer Rouge guerillas at the Thailand border.
    Chreng said that his first job was for the United Nations
    Transitional Authority in Cambodia ("UNTAC") from 1991-1993.                 He
    was in charge of helping people register to vote. Chreng monitored
    voters in order to determine whether they were true Cambodians. He
    opposed allowing Vietnamese immigrants to register to vote in the
    -3-
    Cambodian elections since he believed that letting the Vietnamese
    vote had ensured the victory of the Khmer Rouge.    Chreng testified
    that an individual named Sok May threatened him at this time
    because he opposed petitioner's ideas as to who should vote.     Sok
    May only threatened but never attacked petitioner.
    Chreng further testified that on January 2, 1991, when he
    left the polls to pick up his motorcycle, Sok May told him that he
    would be killed if he continued to prevent people from voting.    On
    cross-examination, Chreng stated that Sok May had threatened him on
    November 30, 1991.
    In 1991, Chreng became a member of the National United
    Front For a Neutral, Peaceful Cooperative and Independent Cambodia
    (hereinafter "FUNCINPEC") political party.    His involvement in the
    party included assisting in the recruiting of members, creating
    flyers and banners, posting pictures and explaining the party's
    principles.    Chreng testified that the party advocated an end to
    violence, assistance for Khmer women, finding justice, protecting
    the country's territory, improving immigration laws, eradicating
    corruption, and changing laws.
    On May 23, 1993, Prince Norodom Ranariddh, President of
    the FUNCINPEC, won the Cambodian elections.     Petitioner had spent
    three months campaigning for FUNCINPEC, including Sundays and
    holidays.     He initially testified that in May 1993, Sok May had
    grabbed him by the collar.    But when it was pointed out to Chreng
    -4-
    that he had testified previously that Sok May had threatened him in
    January of 1991, Chreng revised his testimony to say that it was
    two unknown individuals who had grabbed his collar and punched him
    while he stood by his motorcycle.      On re-direct, Chreng testified
    that this incident took place in May 1993, and that Sok May was not
    involved.    Chreng told the IJ that he did not know these two
    individuals, who were wearing dark glasses. One grabbed him by the
    collar and punched him in the face.     Thereafter, Chreng could not
    see anything.    The other individual grabbed him by the shoulder,
    threatened him, and told him to allow Vietnamese to register for
    the election, otherwise he would be killed.         After that, they
    disappeared. While Chreng could not identify them, he thought that
    only members of the People's Party would slap him in the face.
    After the 1993 elections, Chreng worked as a staff member
    for the post office at the Ponchentong airport receiving packages
    and letters.    Ten of his colleagues at work belonged to Hun Sen's
    People's Party, whereas five belonged to the FUNCINPEC Party.
    Chreng testified that he had problems with the members of the
    People's Party because they would take the customers' packages and
    letters.
    On July 5 and 6, 1997, while Chreng was still working for
    the post office, Hun Sen and his followers conducted a coup.     Hun
    Sen had ceased to be willing to share power with Prince Ranariddh.
    During the coup, Chreng was separated from his family and went into
    -5-
    hiding until the shooting subsided.       He stayed in a water tunnel
    for two days and then hid in a jungle when things calmed down.        His
    wife, with whom the children had been living, remained at their
    address given in his I-589 form.     Chreng hid for five months, from
    July to December 1997, in the Kampong Speu Province of Cambodia.
    He did not return to Phnom Penh until December 1997 because he
    feared being killed by Hun Sen's party, which had tried to kill
    FUNCINPEC party members.
    Upon returning to Phnom Penh, Chreng joined the Sam
    Rainsy political party.       That party's goals were to eradicate
    corruption, promote freedom and strive towards true democracy.
    Although never a candidate for political office himself, Chreng
    campaigned for Rainsy and urged people to vote for him.          After the
    1997   election,   Chreng   personally   advised   Rainsy   on   political
    matters, meeting with Rainsy every Monday at party headquarters
    from January 1998 to 2000.       On July 26, 1998, Cambodia held a
    second national election.     For three months prior to the election,
    Chreng campaigned every day in Kampon Speu, lifting banners,
    posting pictures and promoting the party's vote among the people.
    His campaign activities led to some problems.         On the morning of
    April 6, 1998, Chreng found an anonymous letter at the front door
    of his house telling him to stop supporting Sam Rainsy's party or
    he would be killed.
    -6-
    When Hun Sen won the second election, some people,
    including Chreng, protested, claiming that Hun Sen had won the
    elections by fraud. On September 8, 1998, around 10,000 dissidents
    gathered in front of the Wat Boton Temple.         The demonstrators,
    including petitioner, who held a microphone, walked in a line
    toward the Independence Building.      Once at the building, Hun Sen's
    soldiers blocked the demonstrators and impeded them from proceeding
    forward.    Chreng testified that three soldiers approached him and
    one hit him on the left shoulder with a black stick so hard that he
    fell.   Another soldier snatched the microphone from him, while a
    third hit and kicked him.   Chreng stated he did not suffer broken
    bones, but a wound on his leg became infected.     Chreng did not seek
    medical attention for his injuries but rather applied traditional
    medicine.   He claimed that he did not see a doctor because he would
    have been killed since most of them belong to Hun Sen's party.
    Chreng stated that after being kicked, he was also photographed.
    When the other demonstrators moved forward, petitioner used the
    opportunity to escape and went to a stadium where he rested until
    the following day.
    On September 9, 1998, the demonstrators moved from the
    Independence Building towards the American Embassy where they
    appealed for a change in the electoral laws.         From there, they
    walked towards the Cambodian Parliament, but, before they reached
    the Parliament, they again encountered Hun Sen soldiers with water
    -7-
    vehicles blocking their way.          As they tried to move forward, the
    soldiers shot water at them in an effort to disperse the crowd.
    Chreng testified that some people died and that when he escaped and
    went home, he saw that the situation was bad.           He was not injured
    during the demonstrations. From September 9, 1998 to June 2000, he
    was not employed because there was no work for Sam Rainsy party
    people.    Instead, he survived on his wife's "merchant" income.
    Chreng testified that in June 2000, members of the Sam
    Rainsy party gathered in front of a tomb built in remembrance of
    those who had died "For the Cause of Justice."                   During the
    ceremony, petitioner gave a speech on why those commemorated had
    perished and blamed the adherents of Hun Sen.           On his way home, he
    was   surreptitiously    followed,      then   placed   under    arrest   and
    imprisoned for three days.       While Chreng was not harmed in any way
    when in detention, the police superintendent told him at the time
    to stop supporting Sam Rainsy's party.
    On November 23, 2000, according to Chreng, Hun Sen was
    planning a coup in front of the Department of Defense in order to
    get rid of the Sam Rainsy party.            On the following day, Chreng
    attended   a   party   meeting   at   the   Cambodian   Hotel.     Suddenly,
    Chreng's son ran in to tell him that three police officers had come
    to their home to arrest him.          According to his son, the officers
    had also threatened to kill his wife if she did not reveal his
    whereabouts, so his wife had asked that petitioner not return to
    -8-
    the house.     At the end of the day, he hid in the jungle.            He
    testified that thereafter, his life changed.            He believed that
    spies were following him everywhere he went.            He testified that
    people who had been arrested on November 23, 2000 all belonged to
    the Sam Rainsy party and that ten of them had been killed, while
    approximately    50   innocent   people   had   been   imprisoned.   When
    confronted with his own documentation, which stated that people
    arrested were members of the Cambodian freedom fighters, Chreng
    responded that Hun Sen fabricated that story in order to get rid of
    Sam Rainsy party members.
    Chreng came to the United States on January 24, 2001, on
    a visitor's visa he had applied for at the American Embassy.
    Although Cambodian officials were said to be looking for him on
    November 24, 2000, he was able to get to the Embassy on November
    30, 2000.    He also obtained a passport on November 22, 2000 because
    he was afraid he would be imprisoned.           Chreng explained that he
    remained in Cambodia for so long after November 24, 2000 because he
    was waiting for things to calm down, in spite of the fact that he
    was hiding.    He testified that if he should now return to Cambodia,
    he would be killed.     In his application, he alleged that he could
    no longer live in Cambodia because he was afraid of Hun Sen's
    followers.    He also said he was afraid for his wife and children,
    not knowing where they were.
    -9-
    During the hearing, petitioner submitted four public
    statements made by the Sam Rainsy party denouncing certain acts of
    violence taking place in Cambodia.           Statements dated June and
    October 2004, respectively, denounced a recent attempt by two
    unknown motorcyclists on the life of a member of the Sam Rainsy
    Steering Committee and chair of the council for the province of
    Oddor Menchley, and a separate grenade-throwing incident by unknown
    individuals, in which an active party member and two of his
    children were injured.      Chreng also submitted a July 2004 letter
    from Madeleine Albright and statements from Senate Majority Leader
    Bill Frist condemning statements allegedly made by Hun Sen that
    were meant to intimidate the opposition.          Chreng also submitted
    newspaper articles relating to events taking place from 1997 to
    2001.
    The government's evidence at the hearing consisted of the
    State Department's then most recent (2003) country conditions
    report on Cambodia, to which the petitioner made no objection.
    According to the report, there had been in the period of the report
    no politically motivated disappearances; no reports of political
    prisoners;    greater   media   access     for   political    parties      and
    candidates;   a   general   governmental    respect   for    the   right   to
    associate; an ability for political parties to conduct their
    activities freely without government interference; a decline in
    political violence surrounding the July 2003 National Assembly
    -10-
    elections; a smooth transfer of power to newly elected commune
    councilors; no government coercion or prohibition in respect to
    membership in political organizations; and a need for all three
    major political parties to work together towards a new coalition,
    as no had party won the required majority to form a government.
    B.   IJ's Decision
    On November 19, 2004, the IJ issued an oral decision
    denying petitioner any relief.     While finding that petitioner's
    testimony about his experiences in Cambodia was generally credible,
    the IJ stated he needed to consider whether the facts, as related
    by respondent Chreng, satisfied the elements in the definition of
    "refugee."   The first question was "whether or not the events
    described by the respondent amount to past persecution."   Although
    finding that the petitioner had run into violent or potentially
    violent situations in connection with his political activities, the
    IJ held that petitioner's involvement in the September 8 and 9,
    1998 demonstrations did not show persecution, as the violence was
    not directed at him personally for the purpose of changing his
    political beliefs or punishing him. Rather, the police were acting
    to break up a demonstration and regain public order.
    However, Chreng also described being arrested at his home
    following a speech in support of his political party and being
    detained for three days.    In addition, Chreng described a police
    search for him for the purpose of arresting him "for what can only
    -11-
    be described as a political motive based on the information the
    court has."   The IJ, therefore, said, "the court is inclined to
    give the respondent the benefit of the doubt on the issue of past
    persecution and will so find."           The IJ went on to state that
    "having found past persecution, that creates only the presumption
    of a well-founded fear of future persecution and the burden has
    shifted to the Government to show a change of conditions that would
    rebut that presumption" (emphasis supplied).
    The IJ discussed and credited the 2003 Department of
    State country conditions report for Cambodia. According to the IJ,
    "this Court notes that the situation in Cambodia has changed
    significantly, in a political sense, from the situation that
    existed when the respondent was involved in politics four years
    ago."    The IJ quoted from the report section on Human Rights
    Practices for the Year 2003 that "the government did not coerce or
    forbid membership in political organizations.             Political parties
    normally were able to conduct their activities freely without
    government interference . . . ."         The IJ also quoted from a later
    section of the report describing the 2003 elections in which, for
    the first time, local level elections were held for the purpose of
    electing commune councilors for 1,621 communes in Cambodia. The IJ
    noted that the Sam Rainsy party had won 1,346 seats across those
    1,621   communes,   and   that   while   the   People's   Party   was   again
    victorious, they were required to share power with the other
    -12-
    parties in all but 148 of those communes.          According to the report,
    the transfer of power to the newly elected councilors was smooth.
    The IJ concluded:         "On the basis of this report and for other
    reasons, the Court finds that the government has successfully
    rebutted    the   presumption    of    a     well-founded   fear   of   future
    persecution."
    While finding the government had successfully rebutted
    the presumption, the IJ went on to note that when "arrested and
    held by the government for three days in June of 2000 he [Chreng]
    was   not   beaten   or    tortured    and     admittedly   encountered   'no
    problems.'" The IJ continued: "Although the government was looking
    for him allegedly to arrest him in November of 2000, there is no
    way of telling whether he would have been mistreated in connection
    with that arrest or whether the government had any legitimate basis
    for that arrest.     The respondent did not stick around to find out
    so it is not just the report on country conditions that would
    support the conclusion that there is not an adequate basis to find
    objectively a well-founded fear, but there is also the fact that
    respondent, in personal persecution terms, was not treated in such
    a way as to suggest he would be tortured or killed because of his
    connection to the Sam Rangsi [sic] Party."
    The IJ then stated, "Having made these findings, the
    Court makes the further finding that the respondent [Chreng] has
    not met his burden with regard to his eligibility application for
    -13-
    asylum.      Accordingly,    that   application   for    asylum   is   hereby
    denied."     The IJ went on to state that since Chreng had failed to
    meet the more lenient standard for asylum, it follows that he fails
    to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
    Regarding CAT relief, the IJ held that there was no suggestion that
    the government of Cambodia would be likely to torture petitioner
    should he return to Cambodia.
    III.     Chreng's Appeal to the BIA
    In his motion of appeal to the BIA, Chreng asserted he
    had no objection to the immigration court's recitation of the facts
    but believed that it was unfair for him to have to show both that
    he experienced past persecution and also that present country
    conditions made it dangerous for him to return to Cambodia, in
    light of his individual circumstances. He also alleged that he had
    learned of the importance of present country conditions only after
    his testimony, and that if the granting of immigration relief
    necessitated such evidence, then he should be entitled to present
    the same.    The petitioner asked the BIA to remand the case to the
    IJ for further testimony regarding country conditions.
    The BIA expressly adopted and affirmed the decision of
    the IJ. It also stated: "The Immigration Judge correctly concluded
    that   the   Department     of   Homeland   Security    (DHS)   successfully
    rebutted the presumption of future persecution by demonstrating
    that country conditions had changed in Cambodia."           The BIA denied
    -14-
    Chreng's   motion    to    remand    stating       that     the   relevance     of   the
    present-day country conditions "requirement" (sic) was evident from
    agency regulations.        It noted that Chreng had not presented any
    prima facie evidence that country conditions in Cambodia were such
    that he would have a well-founded fear of persecution if he
    returned to his country of origin.
    IV.        Discussion
    Chreng argues in his petition on appeal that the IJ and
    the BIA erred in finding that the government had successfully
    rebutted   the   presumption         of    a     well-founded      fear    of   future
    persecution.        He    contends    that       the   IJ    misread      the   country
    conditions report and seeks reversal or remand of the decision.
    We begin with the premise that the IJ and BIA did, in
    fact, find that Chreng had experienced past persecution, leading to
    the rebuttable presumption that he had a well-founded fear of
    future persecution were he to return to Cambodia. This leaves open
    the question whether there was substantial evidence to support the
    IJ's and the Board's further findings that the government had
    rebutted this presumption.           We believe there was.2
    2
    While the IJ's language, quoted previously in this opinion,
    indicates a finding of past persecution, the IJ went on to say,
    somewhat murkily, that "in personal persecution terms," Chreng may
    not have been treated so as to suggest he would be tortured or
    killed because of his connection to the Sam Rainsy party.      The
    government seizes upon this language as undermining the finding of
    past persecution, arguing that because Chreng did not appeal from
    this language to the BIA, he failed to exhaust administrative
    remedies, leaving us without jurisdiction. But we think that the
    -15-
    Determinations     denying    asylum      are   reviewed       for
    substantial evidence.      The Board's decision will be upheld if
    "supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on
    the record considered as a whole." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 481 (1992).     This standard is deferential:          the Board's
    decision must be upheld unless "the record evidence would compel a
    reasonable fact finder to make a contrary determination."          Guzman
    v. INS, 
    327 F.3d 11
    , 15 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing Aguilar-Solis v.
    INS, 
    168 F.3d 565
    , 569 (1st Cir.1999)).
    A   petitioner's   well-founded    fear   presumption    can   be
    rebutted by a showing that conditions in the applicant's native
    country have so changed that he no longer has a well-founded fear
    of future persecution.   
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.13
    (b)(1)(i)(A)-(B); see El
    Moraghy v. Ashcroft, 
    331 F.3d 195
    , 203 (1st Cir. 2003).           When the
    conditions in the country of origin have changed so dramatically as
    to undermine the well-foundedness of the fear, the presumption
    disappears and the applicant is not entitled to asylum.           Civil v.
    INS, 
    140 F.3d 52
    , 66 (1st Cir. 1998).       However, changes of only a
    very general nature in country conditions may not suffice. Quevedo
    v. Ashcroft, 
    336 F.3d 39
    , 44 (1st Cir. 2003).             To rebut the
    presumption, the changes must be such as to "have negated the
    IJ's and the BIA's basic assumptions -- that Chreng was subjected
    to past persecution so as to give rise to the presumption of future
    persecution -- are manifest. Additionally, as we agree with the IJ
    and the BIA that the presumption of future persecution was
    rebutted, we need not further consider this contention.
    -16-
    particular applicant's well-founded fear of persecution." Fergiste
    v. INS, 
    138 F.3d 14
    , 19 (1st Cir. 1998).        Account must be taken of
    the individual's particularized substantiated fear. See Yatskin v.
    INS, 
    255 F.3d 5
    , 10 (1st Cir. 2001).
    In this case, the government's rebuttal took the form of
    the circumstances presented in the 2003 country conditions report.
    While "[t]he advice of the State Department is not binding,"
    Gailius v. INS, 
    147 F.3d 34
    , 45 (1st Cir. 1998) (citations and
    internal quotation marks omitted), State Department reports are
    "generally probative of country conditions."           Palma-Mazariegos v.
    Gonzales, 
    428 F.3d 30
    , 36 (1st Cir. 2005).              Evidence in these
    reports   never   "automatically    trump[s]"    petitioner's    specific
    evidence, Waweru v. Gonzales, 
    437 F.3d 199
    , 203 (1st Cir. 2006)
    (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in
    original), and is "open to contradiction," Zarouite v. Gonzales,
    
    424 F.3d 60
    , 63 (1st Cir. 2005).           Further, as already noted,
    "abstract evidence of generalized changes in country conditions,
    without more, cannot rebut a presumption of a well-founded fear of
    future persecution."   Palma-Mazariegos, 
    428 F.3d at 35
    .         However,
    where a report demonstrates fundamental changes in the specific
    circumstances that form the basis of a petitioner's presumptive
    fear of future persecution, it "may be sufficient, in and of it
    itself," to rebut that presumption.       
    Id. at 36
    .    The latter appears
    to be the case here, as the IJ and the BIA effectively found.
    -17-
    Chreng's claim of fear relied on how the People's Party
    was treating members of the opposition.             The IJ found that the
    country conditions report negated Chreng's fears of future ill-
    treatment.    Political parties, according to the report, were now
    able   to   conduct    their   activities   with    relative   freedom.   In
    particular, the People's Party was now forced by the results of
    recent elections to work in conjunction with the FUNCINPEC and the
    Sam Rainsy parties, as each of the latter had shared to some degree
    in the victory.       The report stated that the CPP had won 73 seats in
    the National Assembly, while the FUNCINPEC party won 26 seats and
    the Sam Rainsy party 25 seats.              No party won the two-thirds
    majority required to form a government.            The IJ also took note of
    the report's finding that in 2002, following the first national
    commune local-level elections, the CPP had won the most seats, but
    the Sam Rainsy party had also won 1,346 seats in 1,621 communes.
    As a consequence, the CPP party was required to share power with
    other parties in all but 148 of those communes.                Moreover, the
    government was not forcing its citizens to join any particular
    party, and power had been transferred smoothly.
    The report also said there had been no politically
    motivated disappearances and no reports of political prisoners.
    There was greater media access for political parties and candidates
    and a general governmental respect for the right to associate.
    Political parties, moreover, were able to conduct their activities
    -18-
    freely without government interference.             There had been a decline
    in political violence during the July 2003 National Assembly
    elections; a smooth transfer of power to newly elected commune
    councilors; no government coercion or prohibition as to membership
    in   political    organizations;     and     a   need   for   all    three   major
    political parties to work together towards a new coalition, as no
    party had won the required majority to form a government.               See also
    Ouk v. Gonzales, 
    464 F.3d 108
    , 111 (1st Cir. 2006) (finding no
    well-founded fear of future persecution for member of Sam Rainsy
    party and citing the 2003 Cambodia country conditions report for
    the fact that there were no reports of politically motivated
    disappearances or of political prisoners); Ang v. Gonzales, 
    430 F.3d 50
    , 57 (1st Cir. 2005) (finding no well-founded fear of future
    persecution and noting that "[t]he FUNCINPEC and the CPP are both
    integral   parts     of   the    coalition       government   that    now    rules
    Cambodia").      We think the Department of State's country conditions
    report provided substantial evidence to support the IJ's and BIA's
    finding that the government had rebutted the presumption of future
    persecution.
    Once the government rebutted the presumption, the burden
    shifted back to petitioner to show the existence of new sources of
    possible persecution.           In Re N-M-A, 
    22 I&N Dec. 312
    , 321 (BIA
    1998).   Chreng argued to the BIA he did not know until it was too
    -19-
    late that he had to produce any such further evidence.3    But the
    need to do so followed from the same statute and accompanying
    regulations under which he sought immigration relief.      Under 
    8 C.F.R. § 208.13
    (b)(1)(iii)(2005), once the government has rebutted
    the presumption, an "applicant may be granted asylum based on past
    persecution alone if 1) the applicant has demonstrated compelling
    reasons for being unwilling or unable to return to his country of
    nationality or last habitual residence; or 2) the applicant has
    established that there is a reasonable possibility that he may
    suffer other serious harm on return to that country."   Hernandez-
    Barrera v. Ashcroft, 
    373 F.3d 9
    , 23 (1st Cir. 2004).    Chreng was
    thus on notice that further evidence would be needed in the event
    3
    Chreng does not on appeal refer to the statements he
    submitted to the IJ from Madeleine Albright and Bill Frist
    condemning comments and veiled threats made by Hun Sen in 2004
    against the Sam Rainsy Party. These can be said to cast a shadow
    on the more optimistic assessment issued in 2003 by the Department
    of State but, by themselves, were not enough to establish that Hun
    Sen and his people were actually re-engaging in systemic violence
    against the adherents of the Sam Rainsy Party.      Given the 2003
    country conditions report, we cannot say that a reasonable fact-
    finder must find that Chreng had a well-founded fear of future
    persecution should he be returned home at this time.         That a
    country's politics remain volatile, leaving open the possibility of
    deterioration and including some measure of sporadic violence, does
    not necessarily establish an alien's well-founded fear of future
    persecution should he be returned to that country.        As noted
    earlier, Chreng did not take issue with the country conditions
    report during the IJ's hearing. In his appeal to the BIA, Chreng
    acknowledged that he had not addressed the issue of future
    persecution:   "It is patently unfair that the Respondent must
    present his asylum case based upon past persecution without knowing
    that he must also make the case that country conditions presently,
    based upon his individual circumstances, make it dangerous for him
    to return to Cambodia" (emphasis in original).
    -20-
    the IJ determined, as he did, from the country conditions report
    that the presumption had been rebutted.
    Chreng argues that a "full reading of the Country reports
    on Human Rights Practices for Cambodia (2003) . . . shows beyond
    any doubt that Cambodia is still a very imperfect and troubled
    society, and that the Appellant is justifiably frightened to return
    there." It is true that the country report describes ongoing human
    rights violations and systematic deficiencies in the political
    process, but it also outlined significant and specific improvements
    in the political atmosphere, as well as plausible reasons for
    believing that violence against members of the Sam Rainsy Party had
    lessened.    With sufficient evidence of changed country conditions
    in the political sphere and no error in the IJ's reliance on or
    interpretation of the country conditions report, we believe the
    agency's denial of asylum must stand. Asylum is a matter committed
    in major degree to the immigration agencies, which are entitled
    within reasonably broad parameters to make their assessments,
    provided always there is substantial evidentiary support.
    This conclusion also disposes of Chreng's withholding of
    removal claim.      As noted earlier, that claim places a "more
    stringent burden of proof on an alien than does a counterpart claim
    for asylum." Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 
    398 F.3d 120
    , 123 (1st
    Cir. 2005).    While eligibility for asylum requires a well-founded
    fear of future persecution, withholding of removal requires that
    -21-
    the alien show a clear probability of future persecution.      See
    Aguilar-Solis, 
    168 F.3d at
    569 n.3.      It follows, then, that,
    because the petitioner's claim for asylum fails, so too does his
    counterpart claim for withholding of removal.4
    The petition for review is denied.
    4
    Chreng also argues in his brief on appeal that in some cases
    involving past persecution, even if there is little likelihood of
    future persecution, asylum may be granted as a matter of discretion
    for humanitarian reasons if the alien has suffered an atrocious
    form of persecution.     Even assuming arguendo such exceptional
    circumstances might exist here, Chreng did not raise this argument
    before the IJ or the BIA, and thus it is waived.
    -22-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1481

Citation Numbers: 471 F.3d 14, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 31131, 2006 WL 3717367

Judges: Boudin, Campbell, Lipez

Filed Date: 12/19/2006

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (16)

Ang v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 50 ( 2005 )

Yatskin v. Immigration and Naturalization Service , 255 F.3d 5 ( 2001 )

El Moraghy v. Ashcroft , 331 F.3d 195 ( 2003 )

Fidel Angel Hernandez-Barrera v. John Ashcroft, Attorney ... , 373 F.3d 9 ( 2004 )

Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Ashcroft , 4 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 739 ( 2005 )

Palma-Mazariegos v. Gonzales , 428 F.3d 30 ( 2005 )

Gailius v. Immigration & Naturalization Service , 147 F.3d 34 ( 1998 )

Guzman v. Immigration & Naturalization Service , 327 F.3d 11 ( 2003 )

Kevin Frazier v. Edward N. Bailey , 957 F.2d 920 ( 1992 )

Fergiste v. Immigration & Naturalization Service , 138 F.3d 14 ( 1998 )

Zarouite v. Ashcroft , 424 F.3d 60 ( 2005 )

Waweru v. Gonzales , 437 F.3d 199 ( 2006 )

Quevedo v. Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 39 ( 2003 )

Civil v. Immigration & Naturalization Service , 140 F.3d 52 ( 1998 )

Aguilar-Solis v. Immigration & Naturalization Service , 168 F.3d 565 ( 1999 )

Ouk v. Gonzales , 464 F.3d 108 ( 2006 )

View All Authorities »