Lin v. Mukasey (7th Cir. 7/7/08)

POSNER Coffey Flaum

The 7th cir reversed the Board's denial of reopening where the reasons given were that heavy fines for population control laws were not persecution, and no physical force was to be used to force sterilization - this is so, said the Govt, even if she couldn't pay and got sterilized. The Court said no:

The implication is that if a government tells a religious heretic we are going to fine you $1 million for your heresy and if you cannot pay we are going to burn you at the stake, and the heretic cannot pay and therefore is executed, the burning of the heretic would not, in the Board’s view, amount to persecution. We cannot imagine that this is really the Board’s view, since in cases like In re T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 173-75 (BIA 2007), the Board has said that “a particularly onerous fine” can amount to persecution even if nonpayment does not subject the victim of the persecution to physical violence.

The CtApp did suggest potential internal relocation, but since the Govt didn't argue that point, CtApp did not pursue it.

[An interesting side issue is whether this case conflicts with the Kucana case, decided the day earlier. Judge Posner didn't specify whether the Board's error was of law or of discretion... CR]

Read opinion here: 

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.