Haile v. Holder (7th Cir. Jan. 6, 2010)
POSNER Rovner Kanne
Several years ago, the 7th Cir appeared to have decided that ethnic-based denaturalizations of Ethiopians of Eritrean ancestry was persecution. Haile v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 493, 496 (7th Cir. 2005). However, on remand, the Board found that not all denaturalizations constitute persecution, and further found that Haile appeared eligible to resume his citizenship on return to Ethiopia.
The 7th Cir reversed. While not all denaturalization is persecution, that doesn't mean that ethnic-based denaturalization isn't.
From the correct premise that a change of citizenship incident to a change in national boundaries is not persecution per se, it does not follow that taking away a person’s citizenship because of his religion or ethnicity is not persecution. If Ethiopia denationalized the petitioner because of his Eritrean ethnicity, it did so because of hostility to Eritreans; and the analogy to the Nazi treatment of Jews is close enough to suggest that his denationalization was persecution and created a presumption that he has a wellfounded fear of being persecuted should he be returned to Ethiopia.
The 7th cir also stated its belief that being forcibly rendered stateless would constitute persecution.
As to the potential that Haile could reobtain Ethiopian citizenship, the CtApp found that the Board's analysis of Ethiopian law was flawed. It appears that one cannot automatically reobtain Ethiopian citizenship; it's unclear whether the new statute in Ethiopia even applies to people like Haile who haven't obtained citizenship elsewhere; and the fact that Ethiopia would issue a laisser-passer to Haile (which seemed to create a presumption of Ethiopian citizenship) was not dispositive as to how Haile would be treated upon return.