Datau v. Mukasey (1st Cir. 8/27/08)

LIPEZ, Lynch, Tashima

Petitioner, a native of Indonesia, sought asylum, withholding, and deferral under CAT based on persecution due to her Christian beliefs and perceived ethnic Chinese appearance (though she was not in fact ethnically Chinese).  The IJ denied her application and the Board affirmed. On appeal, petitioner raised 2 arguments: (1) The Board's decision lacked support b/c it was based, in part, on the IJ's unclear credibility judgments, and (2) She had presented substantial evidence of both past persecution and the likelihood of future persecution.  The court rejected both arguments.  

(more after the jump)

Read opinion here:  

First, the court found that - as the IJ had not expressly found petitioner to lack credibility and since the IJ had explicitly noted that the decision ultimately did not turn on credibility - it "need not dwell on the IJ's credibility assessment." 

The court then turned to petitioner's arguments regarding persecution, finding that the past incidents of harassment described by petitioner - which included the playing of loud anti-Christian music during worship, obscene graffiti on the church walls, rocks through through the windows during services, unwanted sexual advances from Muslim men, and failing grades at her university - did not rise to the level of persecution. The court cited Susanto v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2006), in which equivalent treatment had been found inadequate to establish the requisite level of harsh treatment. 

Moreover, since petitioner could not establish past persecution, she likewise could not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution . Finally, the court placed weight on the State Department's  International Religious Freedom Report for 2005, which indicated that "some improvement ha[d] occurred in conditions for the Christian minority" and found that therefore "the record suggests that Indonesia is now a more hospital place for petitioner than it was when she left the country" in September 2001. Petitioner's arguments were also weakened by the fact that her family continued to live in Indonesia without having been subject to any treatment approaching the severity of persecution. Finally, petitioner could not show that the persecution she claimed was either the direct result of government or government-supported action or the government's unwillingness to respond or protect her since the Sate Department report indicated an increased willingness by the gvt to protect the Christian minority.  

Since petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, the court held that her claims for withholding and CAT necessarily failed as well.  

PFR denied.

Attys for petitioner: Jeanette Kain, Jeremiah Friedman, and Kaplan, O'Sullivan & Friedman. 

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.