Saade v. Ashcroft

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 03-1602
MARIO SAADE,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ON AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Mario Youssef Saade on brief pro se.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher C.
Fuller, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Alison Marie Igoe, Senior
Litigation Counsel, on brief for respondent.
June 15, 2004
Per Curiam. Mario Saade, a Lebanese citizen, requested
asylum and other relief on the ground that he feared persecution by
the Hezbollah based upon his political opinion. After an
evidentiary hearing, an immigration judge found him ineligible for
asylum, withholding of deportation, or relief under the United
Nations Convention Against Torture.1 Because Saade did not
otherwise contest his removability, the immigration judge ordered
his deportation to Lebanon. The Board of Immigration Appeals
summarily affirmed that decision, and this petition for review
followed.
This court's review of the immigration judge's decision2
is narrowly circumscribed. To reverse the immigration judge's
factual findings, we "must find that the evidence not only supports
that conclusion, but compels it." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 n.1 (1992); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The immigration
judge's application of the relevant legal standards to his factual
circumstances is entitled to substantial deference as well. INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 448 (1987); Alverez-Flores v. INS,
909 F.2d 1, 3-4, 5 (1st Cir. 1990).
1
On appeal, Saade does not challenge the immigration judge's
denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture.
2
Because the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the
immigration judge's decision without opinion, we review the
decision of the immigration judge. Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d 365,
373 (1st Cir. 2003).
-2-
Under those standards, the immigration judge's decision
in this case easily survives review. To be eligible for asylum,
Saade had to prove that he "is unable or unwilling to return to .
. . [his] country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of . . . political opinion." 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b);
Ravindran v. INS, 976 F.2d 754, 758 (1st Cir. 1992). Even putting
credibility issues aside and viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the petitioner, we are not "compelled" to conclude
that Saade was persecuted in the past or has a well-founded fear of
being persecuted in the future on account of his political
opinions.
Further assuming, without deciding, that Saade had
accomplished the "daunting task," Guzman v. INS, 327 F.3d 11, 15
(1st Cir. 2003), of proving past persecution or a well-founded fear
of future persecution, the immigration judge still would have been
justified in finding him ineligible for asylum based on his failure
to demonstrate the required nexus between the alleged persecution
and his political opinions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1) and (2)(i)(A); Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483;
Guzman, 327 F.3d at 15. The immigration judge's conclusion that no
such nexus had been shown is amply supported by the evidence.
Like the alien in Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, Saade
has failed to show that his alleged persecutors "will persecute him
-3-
because of [his] political opinion, rather than because of his
refusal to fight [or work] with them." Under those circumstances,
the immigration judge correctly found him ineligible for asylum,
and Saade has shown no compelling basis for us to reverse that
result.
Because the standard for withholding of deportation is
even more stringent than that for granting asylum, INS v. Stevic,
467 U.S. 407, 428-29 (1984), the immigration judge correctly
concluded that if Saade was not eligible for asylum, then, a
fortiori, he was not eligible for withholding of deportation
either. See Guzman, 327 F.3d at 15.
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied and the
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals is affirmed.
-4-