Tieng Sok is a Cambodian national who fled persecution she suffered on account of her political activities against the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP). After her husband was killed by the CPP, Sok was approached by the police who warned her not to file a report blaming the CPP. However, the Court concluded that the IJ and BIA properly found no past persecution and a lack of objectively reasonable evidence of future persecution. In addition, the Court denied Sok’s due process violation which was based on a claim of poor translation during the IJ hearing. The Court, as did the BIA, stated that since Sok had failed to object to the translation during the IJ hearing, it was not a meaningful complaint before the Court. Furthermore, the Court found that since the IJ considered the evidence “in the best possible light for [Sok]”...”it is not clear how the alleged deficiency could have affected the outcome of the proceedings.”
Khan came to the United States in April of 2001 to flee persecution by Sunni Muslims in Pakistan who threatened Khan because of his outspoken Shi’ite faith. Khan did not apply for asylum in the United States and instead sought asylum in Canada in 2002. After being denied asylum in Canada, Khan returned to the United States in 2004 and then applied for asylum, withholding and CAT in the United States. The BIA declined to review the IJ’s credibility determination and instead denied Khan’s asylum application based on a finding that Khan had not submitted corroborating evidence that was easily obtainable. Mainly, the BIA and the 1st Cir. focused on Khan’s failure to provide a copy of the asylum application he submitted in Canada and lack of proof that Canadian officials still had his Pakistani passport. The Court agreed with the BIA that since Canada is a “friendly government, not the government of the country which he said he was fleeing” it should have been possible for Khan to obtain the asylum application and passport.
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.
Bonilla v. Mukasey, No. 07-1813 (1st Cir.) 8/25/08CUDAHY, Torruella, Lipez
Bonilla and his wife fled Colombia due to threatening phone calls and letters they received from the FARC on account of their political activities with the Liberal Party in Colombia. Bonilla did have a fiver year resident stamp from Venezuela which allowed him to enter and exit the country for business but which had an expiation date. The First Circuit held that the IJ and BIA’s determined that a Venezuelan five-year resident stamp is an offer of permanent residency, lacked support in the record. The Court summarized the findings of sister circuits and concluded that other courts when faced with the similar situation of “ambiguous immigration documents from third countries” have remanded the case back for further clarification on the record. See Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 977 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc); Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 490 (3rd Cir. 2001). The Court further held that while the BIA had stated that Bonilla had not established past persecution, the BIA had not really addressed if Bonilla had a well founded fear of future persecution.
The First Circuit held that the Limani had failed to establish that the incidents involving potential GIA (Armed Islamic Groups) members in which Limani and his wife were threatened amounted to past persecution. The Court held that despite the expert testimony corroborating the claims of Limani that individuals affiliated with extremist group such as the GIA were attempting to locate him to obtain his airport security pass and threatened to kill him and the claims of Limani’s wife that as she was a teacher she was specifically targeted for not adhering to a stringent Islamic dress code, these threats did not amount to persecution on account of a protected ground. Furthermore, the Court found that there was no evidence of a pattern and practice of persecution against individuals with pro-Western view in Algeria. Finally, the Court found that there was also no evidence that the Algerian government was unwilling to take action against fundamental Islamic extremists, therefore, the Court concluded that the IJ and BIA properly denied CAT relief to Limani and his family.
First Circuit 
