Mulahasawovic v. United States Attorney General

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-6-2007
Mulahasawovic v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3559
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Mulahasawovic v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 131.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/131
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-3559
___________
SLAVICA MULAHASAWOVIC,
Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
___________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(No. A95 551 835)
Immigration Judge: R.K. Malloy
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 30, 2007
Before: RENDELL and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
and VANASKIE,* District Judge.
(Filed December 6, 2007)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
*Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie, District Judge for the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Because our opinion is wholly without precedential value, and because the parties
are familiar with its operative facts, we offer only an abbreviated recitation to explain
why we will deny the petition for review. Whether a petitioner has established
persecution is a factual finding subject to the substantial evidence standard of review.
Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002).
Slavica Mulahasawovic, a citizen of both Bosnia and Croatia, entered the United
States on a non-immigrant visitor visa and applied for asylum. The government
interviewed her and subsequently placed her in removal proceedings. After a hearing, the
immigration judge found Ms. Mulahasawovic ineligible for withholding of removal to
Croatia. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied her appeal.
In her original application, Ms. Mulahasawovic claimed life-long harassment and
instances of assault in Bosnia due both to her Croatian ethnicity and her membership in
the Roman Catholic Church. She said that she fled to Croatia and resided there until
coming to the United States. She claimed that she was also scorned in Croatia. She
asserted that the taunts and insults arose because she was from Bosnia and because her
last name sounded like a Muslim name. As a result, though trained as a nurse, she
claimed she could only find work in a factory.
At her hearing, Ms. Mulahasawovic added specific claims that she was sexually
assaulted in Bosnia on two occasions by Muslim ethnic-Bosnian men because she was of
2
Croatian ethnicity. The immigration judge found that her claims of rape in Bosnia lacked
credibility. The judge found that other assertions of harassment and instances of assault
did not meet her burden of demonstrating persecution in Bosnia. Additionally, the judge
found that Ms. Mulahasawovic’s assertions of taunts and her inability to find employment
as a nurse did not prove persecution in the country from which she came and to which she
would be removed: Croatia. Finally, the judge held that there was not any evidence that
the petitioner would face persecution or torture in Croatia. The Bureau of Immigration
Appeals affirmed the decision. The immigration judge did not err by finding that Ms.
Mulahasawovic failed to meet her burden of proof concerning her application for relief
from removal to Croatia.1 For these reasons, we will deny the Petition for Review.
1.
Challenging the holding that petitioner’s assertions of sexual assault in Bosnia
lacked credibility, we note that petitioner cited to a decision of the Ninth Circuit for the
proposition that a person’s failure to disclose a rape at an asylum interview is, itself,
insufficient to support an immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination when the
claim is raised later. Kebede v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 808, 811 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing
Paramasamy v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002)). We do not reach this
issue because the trier of fact denied relief from removal to Croatia and we do not find
evidence to compel a different result.
3