Jahed v. INS

US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

No. 02-70487

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition of the Jahed family to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to deny their motion to remand and appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision denying their asylum petitions.

The members of the Jahed family are citizens of Iran.  Mr. Jahed claimed that he had faced persecution in the past and feared future persecution by soldiers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.  He stated that this persecution stems from his involvement with the Mojahedin, an Iranian political group that was displaced by the current Iranian government.  Mr. Jahed stated that the current Iranian regime has banned the Mojahedin and has ordered all members of the group to be killed.

In his asylum petition, Mr. Jahed recounted an incident where a soldier of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard threatened to kill him and his family unless Mr. Jahed paid him a large sum of money.  Knowing that he would be killed whether or not he paid the money, Mr. Jahed fled the country with his family.

The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Mr. Jahed’s petition, concluding that Mr. Jahed had established that he had been the victim of attempted extortion, but not persecution for his political beliefs.  He further noted that Mr. Jahed’s act of fleeing Iran “was not motivated by his political opinion or lack thereof, but rather by his inability to pay [the money].”

Mr. Jahed filed a motion to reconsider the IJ’s decision due to ineffective counsel incompetent translation by the interpreter.  He also appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration appeals (BIA).  Mr. Jahed filed another motion with the BIA to consider the motion to reopen as a motion to remand.  He later filed a supplemental petition to the BIA requesting relief under the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT).

The BIA accepted the IJ’s decision, dismissed Mr. Jahed’s appeal, and denied the motion to remand.  The BIA did not address Mr. Jahed’s petition for relief under CAT.

The Ninth Circuit concluded, “Petitioner’s evidence viewed in its totality clearly establishes a causal connection between the persecution, the fear of future persecution, and Petitioner’s political opinion.”  The court further noted that the IJ and BIA did not view the soldier who committed the attempted extortion “was part of the totalitarian government to which the Petitioner had been opposed when he was active in the Mojahedin...although the soldier himself did not personally threaten harm, he represented that it would be done by the government by which he was employed.”

The court granted the Jahed’s petition: because Mr. Jahed did face persecution in the past and did have a well-founded fear of persecution in the future, he and his family are eligible for asylum due to Mr. Jahed’s political opinion.

*****

Mayo v. Ashcroft

US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

317 F.3d 867; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1227

Petitioner, a native of the Philippines, entered the United States in 1987 as an unmarried daughter of a lawful permanent resident.  Approximately one year later, she was detained for 22 months following the INS’ finding of documentation that indicated that she was married in the Philippines.  She claimed that the documents were only evidence of a proposal of marriage, but spoke little English and had no representation.  The case eventually reached the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and was remanded for an evidentiary finding and to provide Petitioner with an interpreter and an attorney.  On remand, the immigration judge found that she should not be deported, but the BIA reversed his decision. 

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals did not believe that the BIA sufficiently justified their decision with regard to Petitioner’s credibility.  The BIA relied exclusively upon the first immigration judge’s decision and the previous appeals, which had been reversed and remanded due to many procedural defects.  The Court also found that the IJ properly exercised his discretion in granting Petitioner a Section 212(k) waiver, even though the BIA did not even address this issue in their opinion.

With regard to the validity of the marriage, the man who signed Petitioner’s marriage license testified that the marriage was valid.  Because of inconsistencies in his statements, the IJ did find his testimony credible.  The BIA stated that his inconsistent statements did not provide it with adequate reasons to discredit his entire testimony.  The Court of Appeals did not find the BIA explanation sufficient.  The Court believed that the BIA did not offer the IJ the deference that it should have and failed to provide an adequate justification for its ruling.  The Court agreed with the IJ that there was ample evidence to find that the signature on the marriage license was forged and not a valid signature.  Due to this finding, the marriage was void because it was not performed prior to the time that a valid marriage license was signed.

The Court acknowledged that the case should typically be remanded for further hearings, but in this case, the Court determined that rare enough circumstances were involved as to allow the IJ’s order to be carried out.  Due to the fact that the Petitioner had been in immigration limbo for 12 years and the IJ’s order thoroughly examined the issue, the case was remanded to the BIA with directions that the IJ’s order be carried out and that the Petitioner be granted a waiver of inadmissibility under Section 212(k).

*****

Kourski v. Ashcroft

US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 915

Vassili Kourski, a citizen and native or Russia, petitioned for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the IJ’s denial of his application for asylum. 

The Petitioner applied for asylum before his tourist visa expired, claiming to have been persecuted in Russia as a result of being Jewish by anti-Semites. 

The Petitioner’s presented as evidence a copy of his Russian birth certificate that listed his nationality as being Jewish.  The Petitioner testified that his mother sent him the birth certificate and he did not know whether it was a forgery.  The IJ determined to the birth certificate to be a forgery, and declared him not to be credible. 

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted the petition and held that because the IJ did not find that the Petitioner knew or suspected that the birth certificate was a forgery, he did not have any basis for its adverse credibility finding.