Woldemeskel v. INS ( 2001 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
YESHWARED WOLDEMESKEL,
Petitioner,
v. No. 00-9516
(INS No. A29-910-501)
IMMIGRATION &
NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
ORDER
Filed October 1, 2001
Before TACHA, Chief Judge, McKAY, and CUDAHY, * Circuit Judges.
This matter is before the court on Ms. Woldemeskel’s petition for panel
rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. Upon consideration, the petition for
rehearing is denied. The panel, however, has determined that the opinion should
be revised. The last full paragraph of Part II.C, which begins “We emphasize
that,” is deleted from the opinion. A copy of the revised opinion is attached to
this order.
The petition for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of
Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court
*
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
the court who are in regular active service as required by Fed. R. App. P. 35. As
no member of the panel and no judge in regular active service on the court
requested that the court be polled, that petition is also denied.
Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER, Clerk of Court
by:
Deputy Clerk
-2-
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JUL 25 2001
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk
YESHWARED WOLDEMESKEL,
Petitioner,
v. No. 00-9516
IMMIGRATION &
NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
ON REVIEW FROM AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(INS No. A29-910-501)
Kenneth H. Stern (Stephanie Goldsborough, with him on the briefs), Stern &
Elkind, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner.
Erin Albritton, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division (David
W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and David V. Bernal,
Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, with her on the brief),
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before TACHA, Chief Judge, McKAY, and CUDAHY, * Circuit Judges.
TACHA, Chief Judge.
Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court
*
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
The petitioner appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying
her request for asylum and withholding of deportation and granting voluntary
departure. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (1995), 1 we deny
the petition for review.
I. Background
The petitioner, Ms. Yeshwared Woldemeskel, is a native and citizen of
Ethiopia. In October 1992, she entered the United States on a temporary visa
authorizing a six-month stay. Because she stayed longer than authorized by her
visa, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) instituted deportation
proceedings against her, after which Ms. Woldemeskel applied for asylum and
withholding of deportation claiming that she endured past persecution and feared
future persecution in Ethiopia because of her ethnicity and political opinion. In
August 1994, the immigration judge denied her request for asylum and
1
In 1996, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a was repealed by section 306(b) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No.
104-208, 110 Stat. 3009. IIRIRA dramatically changed the scope and nature of
judicial review in exclusion cases. But because the INS commenced deportation
proceedings against the petitioner before IIRIRA’s effective date, April 1, 1997,
and the final deportation order was entered after October 31, 1996, our review is
governed by the pre-IIRIRA rules as amended by IIRIRA’s transitional rules. See
IIRIRA § 306(c)(1), reprinted as amended in 8 U.S.C. § 1252 note; IIRIRA
309(a), (c)(1) & (4), reprinted as amended in 8 U.S.C. § 1101 note. Under the
transitional rules, § 1105a remains in effect but for minor procedural
amendments.
-2-
withholding of deportation and granted voluntary departure, concluding Ms.
Woldemeskel had not established statutory eligibility for asylum. In an order
dated May 15, 2000, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the
immigration judge’s decision and this petition for review followed.
During the asylum proceedings, Ms. Woldemeskel claimed that she was the
victim of past persecution under the Mengistu regime and that she feared future
persecution under the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE), which
replaced the Mengistu regime in 1991. In 1977, at the age of seventeen, the
Mengistu authorities allegedly arrested and imprisoned Ms. Woldemeskel for
twelve months because she was believed to be a member of a political opposition
group called the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP). Ms.
Woldemeskel testified that, during her first two months of imprisonment, she was
threatened often with a gun and tortured by prison authorities who gagged her,
tied her upside down, and whipped and hit her. When released from prison,
authorities warned she would be arrested again if she worked with individuals
opposing the Mengistu government.
From 1978 to 1990, Ms. Woldemeskel does not claim to have suffered
further persecution. During this time, she married and had two children. In
1991, Ethiopia experienced a change in government with the election of the TGE,
a group dominated by leaders of Tigrean ethnicity who belonged to the Ethiopian
-3-
People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), the political group currently
in power in Ethiopia. Ms. Woldemeskel claims the leaders of the TGE targeted
Ethiopians of Amhara ethnicity, asserting that she and her husband were fired as
a result of their Amhara heritage. In addition, she and her husband were
members of a political opposition group called the All Amhara People’s
Organization (AAPO). Because her husband led a group protesting the firing of
Amharas, he was allegedly arrested by the TGE in 1992. She claims that
authorities then threatened to arrest her too if she did not stop protesting her
husband’s arrest. Shortly thereafter she obtained an Ethiopian passport and left
the country. Because she was unable to obtain visas for her children, she had to
leave them in Ethiopia with a friend.
II. Asylum
A request for asylum involves two steps. First, the asylum applicant has
the burden of proving her statutory eligibility by establishing refugee status. 8
C.F.R. § 208.13(a) 2; Kapcia v. INS, 944 F.2d 702, 706 (10th Cir. 1991). In order
to establish refugee status, the applicant must demonstrate either past
“persecution or a well-founded fear of [future] persecution on account of race,
2
Citations to the C.F.R. are based on the current version of the regulations.
Although 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 was recently amended, see 65 Fed. Reg. 76121,
76133-34 (Dec. 6, 2000), it did not change the substance of the provisions
applicable to Ms. Woldemeskel. In order to minimize potential confusion, we
cite to the most recent version.
-4-
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Although persecution is not explicitly
defined, we have observed that it requires the “infliction of suffering or harm
upon those who differ (in race, religion, or political opinion) in a way regarded
as offensive” and requires “more than just restrictions or threats to life and
liberty.” Baka v. INS, 963 F.2d 1376, 1379 (10th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Analysis of a claim specifically based on a “well-founded fear
of [future] persecution” includes both a subjective and an objective component.
Kapcia, 944 F.2d at 706. The applicant must first prove an objective basis by
“‘credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record, of facts that would support
a reasonable fear that the petitioner faces persecution.’” Id. at 706-07 (quoting
Aguilera-Cota v. INS, 914 F.2d 1375, 1378 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also 8 C.F.R. §
208.13(b)(2)(i)(B) (applicant must prove “reasonable possibility” of future
persecution). If an objective basis exists, the applicant must show her subjective
fear is genuine. Id. at 706.
If the applicant proves her eligibility for refugee status, the Attorney
General then exercises discretionary judgment in either granting or denying
asylum. Id. at 708. In general, the Attorney General’s discretion at this second
step in an asylum claim is “extremely broad.” Id. But if an applicant
demonstrates statutory eligibility based on past persecution, a rebuttable
-5-
presumption of a reasonable fear of future persecution arises. 8 C.F.R. §
208.13(b)(1); Nazaraghaie v. INS, 102 F.3d 460, 462 (10th Cir. 1996). In order
to rebut the presumption in favor of the favorable exercise of discretion, the INS
must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the petitioner no longer has a
well-founded fear of persecution because country conditions have changed. 8
C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(A); Kapcia, 944 F.2d at 709. Alternatively, “the
immigration judge or [the BIA] may take administrative notice of changed
circumstances in appropriate cases, such as where the government from which the
threat of persecution arises has been removed from power.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and emphasis omitted).
In addition, when an asylum applicant shows she experienced “past
persecution so severe that repatriation would be inhumane,” she may be eligible
for a discretionary, humanitarian grant of asylum even when no future danger of
persecution exists. Baka, 963 F.2d at 1379. According to the relevant
regulation, a humanitarian grant of asylum is appropriate when the “applicant has
demonstrated compelling reasons for being unwilling or unable to return . . .
arising out of the severity of the past persecution.” 8 C.F.R. §
208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A).
A. Standard of Review
We apply a substantial evidence standard to the BIA’s resolution of the
-6-
first step of an asylum claim–whether an asylum applicant has established refugee
status: “The BIA’s determination that [the applicant is] not eligible for asylum
must be upheld if ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence
on the record considered as a whole.’ It can be reversed only if the evidence
presented by [the applicant] was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to
conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (internal citation omitted) (quoting 8 U.S.C. §
1105a(a)(4) (1995)). We will not, therefore, “weigh the evidence or . . . evaluate
the witnesses’ credibility.” Kapcia, 944 F.2d at 707 (internal quotation marks
omitted). At the second step of an asylum claim, which requires the exercise of
agency discretion, we review the BIA’s decision for abuse of discretion. Rezai v.
INS, 62 F.3d 1286, 1289 (10th Cir. 1995). Recognizing the BIA’s broad
discretion, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the BIA, but do require
a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Kapcia,
944 F.2d at 708 (internal quotation marks omitted).
B. Eligibility for Asylum
Ms. Woldemeskel argues she is eligible for asylum under any of the
approaches discussed above: (1) humanitarian asylum based on past persecution
by the Mengistu regime; (2) asylum based on the rebuttable presumption created
by past persecution; and (3) asylum based on her well-founded fear of
-7-
persecution under the current government. The immigration judge
concluded–and the BIA agreed–that Ms. Woldemeskel was not entitled to asylum
under any of these approaches. We agree.
1. Past Persecution
Concerning her request for humanitarian asylum, the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in deciding that the past persecution was not severe enough to warrant
a grant of asylum on humanitarian grounds. Ms. Woldemeskel’s imprisonment
under the Mengistu regime occurred several years ago. Afterwards, she lived in
Ethiopia for many years free from harassment or discrimination. Hence, the
record shows a rational connection between the facts in this case and the BIA’s
finding that the imprisonment was not sufficiently severe.
Because the BIA simply stated that the past persecution alone did not
compel a grant of asylum, Ms. Woldemeskel argues that the BIA abused its
discretion by not engaging in an individualized review of the evidence. Although
we may, of course, review the BIA’s order for “procedural regularity,” we have
recognized the BIA need not “write an exegesis on every contention.” Panrit v.
INS, 19 F.3d 544, 545 (10th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Instead, the BIA must “consider the issues and announce its decision in terms
sufficient to enable us, as a reviewing court, to perceive that it has heard and
considered the arguments rather than merely reacted.” Id. Given the BIA’s
-8-
detailed recitation of facts and its acknowledgment that much time has passed
since Ms. Woldemeskel’s ordeal, we are satisfied that the BIA heard and
considered all the evidence and arguments. Moreover, we note the governing
regulation explicitly requires that the asylum applicant “demonstrate[] compelling
reasons” for her unwillingness to return, 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A), in order
to be eligible for asylum on humanitarian grounds. Although the BIA appears to
have exercised its discretion in denying her humanitarian claim, Ms.
Woldemeskel has arguably failed to establish her eligibility by asserting
compelling reasons for her unwillingness to return.
Ms. Woldemeskel also argues the INS failed to rebut the presumption of
future persecution created by the evidence of past persecution. This argument
clearly fails because the record contains considerable evidence that conditions in
Ethiopia changed with the 1991 transition in power. Furthermore, both the
immigration judge and the BIA acknowledged the 1991 change in government
and concomitant change in country conditions. The presumption was clearly
rebutted, shifting the burden back to Ms. Woldemeskel to prove she is eligible
for refugee status because of a well-founded fear of persecution under the TGE,
rather than the Mengistu regime.
2. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
Ms. Woldemeskel may prove a well-founded fear of persecution based on
-9-
her Amhara ethnicity or political opinion in one of two ways: she may
demonstrate that she would be singled out personally for persecution in Ethiopia,
or she may show she has a reasonable fear of persecution because of her
membership in a group subject to “a pattern or practice of persecution.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A)-(B). The group must consist “of persons similarly situated
to [her] on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” Id. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A). The BIA
concluded she failed to meet her burden of proof under either approach and we
agree. Although Ms. Woldemeskel may subjectively fear future persecution in
Ethiopia, she has failed to meet her burden in proving an objectively reasonable
fear of persecution should she return to Ethiopia.
The BIA concluded the record does not support a finding that Ms.
Woldemeskel is a member of a group currently subject to a pattern or practice of
persecution. We agree with the BIA’s conclusion because, although the record
does show continued political unrest and ethnic conflict in Ethiopia, it does not
show that members of the AAPO or people of Amhara heritage are subject to a
pattern or practice of persecution. A pattern or practice of persecution has been
defined as “something on the order of organized or systematic or pervasive
persecution.” Makonnen v. INS, 44 F.3d 1378, 1383 (8th Cir. 1995). The record
contains evidence that the EPRDP, the organization that controlled the TGE and
-10-
that is now in power, may be responsible for various human rights violations,
including extra-judicial killings and torture, but the evidence does not support the
conclusion that certain groups suffer systematic or pervasive persecution. Some
evidence demonstrates that the EPRDF has imprisoned and harassed members of
political opposition groups and that faculty members of Amhara ethnicity have
been dismissed from the university. This evidence, however, does not support a
finding of systematic and pervasive persecution.
Moreover, Ms. Woldemeskel failed to prove she is similarly situated to
individuals currently targeted for harassment and discrimination. The evidence
shows that many, if not all, of the victims of harassment and intimidation are
AAPO leaders and outspoken activists. For example, the 1994 State Report on
Ethiopia’s country conditions acknowledges that AAPO activists believed by the
TGE to advocate violence or insurrection are often arrested, but regular AAPO
members have not been targeted. Ms. Woldemeskel has failed to prove that her
position in the AAPO is similar to those previously targeted by the government.
See, e.g., Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 1997) (requiring asylum
applicant prove that his position in a political opposition group was similar to
those members of the group subject to persecution).
In addition to finding that Ms. Woldemeskel is not similarly situated to
individuals undergoing persecution, the BIA also concluded the evidence failed
-11-
to support Ms. Woldemeskel’s claim that she will be personally singled out for
persecution. Even if she and her husband were fired because of their ethnicity,
this fact alone does not constitute persecution. As both the immigration judge
and the BIA noted, governmental employees are often replaced when a new
administration takes office. Furthermore, we have recognized that termination of
employment or fear of unemployment does not–without more–support a grant of
asylum. Baka, 963 F.2d at 1379 (citing Zalega v. INS, 916 F.2d 1257, 1260 (7th
Cir. 1990) (requiring substantial economic detriment to support grant of
asylum)). In addition, like the BIA, we need not address whether her husband’s
political opinions will be imputed to Ms. Woldemeskel because the evidence in
the record does not show clearly that he was arrested based on his political
opinion and activism. In order to prove a well-founded fear of persecution based
on her political opinion, Ms. Woldemeskel had the burden of proving she fears
particularized persecution targeted at her personally. Instead, the record only
supports a finding that she may experience political alienation because she
disagrees with the government’s policies. See Safaie v. INS, 25 F.3d 636, 640
(8th Cir. 1994) (noting that an asylum applicant’s disagreement with repressive
governmental policies is insufficient to establish refugee status).
In support of her argument that she has a well-founded fear of
individualized persecution, Ms. Woldemeskel challenges the BIA’s refusal to
-12-
consider an allegedly official Ethiopian document, which orders her arrest for her
political involvement with the AAPO. She claims this document proves the
government will seek to arrest her upon her return. The immigration judge and
the BIA, however, did not consider the document because it was not
authenticated according to regulation, see 8 C.F.R. § 287.6(a)-(b), 3 and its timing
and content raise doubts about its credibility. The document conveniently
surfaced as Ms. Woldemeskel was preparing her asylum application, having last
been in the possession of her brother. In addition, it contains self-serving
information totally unnecessary for authorization of an arrest but useful in
preparing an asylum application, such as details regarding Ms. Woldemeskel’s
friend, her political activity, and her departure from Ethiopia. We may not weigh
the evidence, and we will not question the immigration judge’s or BIA’s
credibility determinations as long as they are substantially reasonable. Given the
document’s timing and content, the BIA reached a reasonable conclusion
supported by substantial evidence. In short, the record supports the BIA’s
3
Because the BIA did not rely solely on her failure to follow the
regulation, we need not address Ms. Woldemeskel’s argument that, under prior
BIA decisions, her failure to comply with the regulation’s procedures does not
automatically invalidate the document. Similarly, we need not discuss her
argument that she did not have to comply with the regulation because both the
INS and the immigration judge conceded that a copy was sufficient. Even if the
document had been authenticated under the regulation, the immigration judge and
the BIA remained free to assess its credibility.
-13-
decision that Ms. Woldemeskel did not meet her burden in establishing a well-
founded fear of persecution.
C. Administrative Notice
Ms. Woldemeskel argues that the BIA violated her Fifth Amendment right
to due process by taking administrative notice of three facts contained in the
State Department’s 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and not
providing her with an opportunity to respond to these facts. Because of their
specialized knowledge in certain specific subject areas, administrative agencies
may “take notice of technical or scientific facts that are within the agency’s area
of expertise.” Llana-Castellon v. INS, 16 F.3d 1093, 1096 (10th Cir. 1994)
(internal quotation marks omitted). It is well established that the BIA “may take
administrative notice of commonly acknowledged facts, which may include
current events bearing on an applicant’s well-founded fear of persecution.”
Kowalczyk v. INS, 245 F.3d 1143, 1147 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation
marks omitted). In addition, the BIA “may draw reasonable inferences from the
evidence which comport with common sense.” Kapcia, 944 F.2d at 705 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The BIA may not, however, base its decision primarily on facts not
contained in the record without providing asylum applicants with notice and the
opportunity to rebut inferences drawn from those facts. See id. 705-06;
-14-
Kowalczyk, 254 F.3d at 1147-48. We have repeatedly recognized that
individuals subject to deportation are entitled to procedural due process, which
provides an “‘opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful
manner.’” See, e.g., Llana-Castellon, 16 F.3d at 1096 (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)).
In Ms. Woldemeskel’s case, however, the BIA did not base its decision on
the administratively noticed facts, which at most merely supplement the BIA’s
conclusion that “[t]here is no basis in the record upon which to conclude that
persons similarly situated as the respondent are persecuted in Ethiopia simply on
account of their Amhara ethnicity or their membership in the AAPO.” In re
Woldemeskel, No. A29 910 501, at 2 (BIA May 15, 2000). As we have already
discussed, the record lacks evidence showing Ms. Woldemeskel had a well-
founded fear of persecution based on her AAPO membership or Amhara
ethnicity. Ms. Woldemeskel would first have to meet her burden of proof before
the three facts from the State Department report would have any detrimental
effect on her case.
Even if she had established statutory eligibility, the administratively
noticed facts would have little impact on her case. The first fact recognizes the
establishment in 1992 of a special prosecutor’s office committed to vindicating
human rights violations under the Mengistu regime–a detail also included in the
-15-
record. The second fact simply recognizes that the EPRDF formally replaced the
TGE in 1995, a fact with little significance because both parties acknowledge
that the TGE was dominated by the EPRDF; hence, the BIA’s recognition of the
1995 transition is at most an acknowledgment that country conditions today are
similar to those under the TGE. The final fact notes that political opposition
parties are anticipated to participate in the May 2000 elections. We recognize
that this is a misstatement of the 1999 report, which indicates that opposition
parties are expected to protest. But although this is a rather disconcerting error,
the reality that opposition groups planned to protest does not help Ms.
Woldemeskel prove her case for asylum.
III. Withholding of Deportation
An asylum application also includes a request for withholding of
deportation, which the Attorney General must grant if the statutory criteria are
met. An applicant is entitled to withholding of deportation if the Attorney
General “determines that [the applicant’s] life or freedom would be threatened . .
. on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1994 & Supp. 1995). The
burden of proof for withholding of deportation is, however, significantly higher
than that for asylum. In order to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of
deportation, the applicant must establish a “clear probability of persecution”
-16-
through presentation of “evidence establishing that it is more likely than not that
[the applicant] would be subject to persecution on one of the specified grounds.”
INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984). Because substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s decision denying the asylum claim, Ms. Woldemeskel clearly
did not carry her burden of proof under the more stringent standard required for
withholding of deportation. See, e.g., Nazaraghaie, 102 F.3d at 465; Kapcia, 944
F.2d at 709.
We accordingly deny the petition for review and AFFIRM the BIA’s
decision to deny asylum and withholding of deportation and to grant voluntary
departure.
-17-