Amin v. Holder
**Credibility**
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because at least two of the inconsistencies cited by the IJ go to the heart of Amin’s claim, and the IJ relied on these inconsistencies after confronting Amin about them and weighing Amin’s explanations. First, Amin testified that her family had not had any problems with the Cameroonian government after Amin came to the United States. This testimony of Amin, however, was inconsistent with a letter from the Provincial Chairman of the Southern Cameroon National Council (“SCNC Letter”) that Amin included with her asylum application stating that after Amin left the country, security forces had come to her residence every week and that the government had arrested and detained Amin’s relatives. Second, Amin testified that when she was seventeen, the principal of her school called the police after Amin organized a student strike because the principal knew that Amin must have been involved, and that the phone call resulted in Amin’s arrest and abuse. This was inconsistent with Amin’s testimony detailing that, both before and after the strike and arrest, Amin was held in high esteem by those running the school.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/03/10/05-74674.pdf
Najmabadi v. Holder (3/9)
**MTR, changed country conditions, Iran**
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Najmabadi’s motion to reopen. The BIA considered Najmabadi’s motion to be premised on the fact that circumstances in Iran have significantly declined since her hearing, and as a result she has a viable claim of persecution based on direct and imputed political opinion, and the fact that she is a ‘westernized woman.’ The BIA correctly held that the evidence submitted by Najmabadi in her motion to reopen, which established the existence of torture and punishment for dissenters, was in evidence at the prior hearing. The evidence addressed general conditions affecting the population at large, and was not linked to Najmabadi’s “particular circumstances.” There was also no evidence, which fell “outside the realm of speculation,” that established that “returnees from the United States will likely face persecution.” Najmabadi’s failed to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence– it was not “qualitatively different” from that submitted at her initial asylum hearing. The evidence Najmabadi presents in her motion to reopen does not share an individualized relevancy. There is no indication that the Board failed to credit Najmabadi’s affidavit, as it characterized her motion as premised on her “direct and imputed political opinion, and the fact that she is a ‘westernized woman’ ” and specifically referenced both Iran’s “limitations on the freedoms of women” and its punishment of dissenters. In addition, even assuming that Najmabadi is a member of a disfavored group, she points to no evidence of an individualizedthreat to persecute her.
Dissent: Pregurson
Najmabadi should be granted the chance to reopen her case to provide evidence regarding the persecution of individuals returned from the West to Iran.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/09/05-72401.pdf
Tampubolan v. Holder (3/9)
**Disfavored group analysis/withholding**
The BIA erred in failing to apply disfavored group analysis to petitioners’ withholding claim because the record compels a finding that Christians in Indonesia are a disfavored group. The Indonesian government’s support of, or at the very least, acquiescence in, militant expressions of Islam has subjected Christians to violent persecution in Indonesia. The record demonstrates that Christian churches throughout Indonesia have been burned, bombed, and vandalized by Muslim extremists, and Petitioners’ family members who remain in Indonesia have been affected by these attacks. The Religious Freedom Report notes that the government failed to hold accountable religious extremists who killed and terrorized Christians, even as it fully prosecuted and punished Christian leaders for subversion. Therefore, a remand to the BIA is necessary for it to determine whether the combination of disfavored group evidence and evidence of individualized risk is sufficient to establish a clear probability that petitioners will be persecuted if removed to Indonesia.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/09/06-70811.pdf
newimmigrationcases
leave a comment