Ruano v. Ashcroft, Ninth Circuit
Edin Arcenio Ruano, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the US in 1991. He entered without authorization, was eventually found by the INS and placed in deportation proceedings. He conceded deportability and applied for asylum, claiming to have been persecuted the Guatemala. During his asylum hearing, Ruano testified that while in Guatemala he was a member of the National Center Union, a political party. He became an official in the party. He also worked for the government. About one year later, he began receiving death threats from a guerrilla organization in the mail, both at home and at work. He testified that he received such letters regularly from 1985 until 1991, about 30 in total. The letters referred to his membership in the political party as a reason for the threats. Ruano sought help from the police, but they only promised to investigate. In 1987, Ruano began to be followed by four armed men. On several occasions they came face to face, but Ruano managed to avoid them. In 1989, because of the threats to his life, he quit the political party. Despite this, the threats did not stop. He quit his job, but the threats continued. Finally, in 1991, he fled to the US.
Ruano’s asylum application was denied by an immigration judge who found that there was not sufficient evidence to show that he had ever been persecuted, nor was there evidence to show he would face future persecution if returned to Guatemala. Ruano appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed the immigration judge. Ruano then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the Board, finding that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Ruano had been persecuted in Guatemala. Noting that while unfulfilled threats generally do not constitute persecution, the court found that the numerous confrontations between Ruano and the armed guerrillas who threatened him, combined with their numerous trips to his home and confrontations with his family members met the court’s established standard for past persecution. Upon a finding of past persecution, an asylum applicant is to be granted asylum unless the government proves that changed country conditions eliminate the presumption of future persecution. The government presented a State Department country condition report on Guatemala, but the court found that because is failed to address the individual claims made by Ruano, it failed to rebut the presumption that he would be persecuted if returned to Guatemala.
Therefore, the court reversed the denial of asylum and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The opinion is available online at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0170915p.pdf.
Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co., Ninth Circuit
Olivia Mendoza and a number of other people, all legal immigrants, sued their employers, two agricultural companies in Washington State, claiming that the companies conspired to depress wages by hiring undocumented immigrants. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) did not provide a basis for the suit.
The Ninth Circuit reversed, and reinstated the complaint, allowing it to go forward. According to the court, the plaintiffs were entitled to pursue a remedy under RICO. RICO allows “any person injured” by actions prohibited by RICO to sue for damages, in this case, the alleged difference between the wages paid and the wages that would have been paid if undocumented workers had not been hired. While acknowledging that there could be other causes for the wages paid, the court found that this was properly an issue for trial, and not a basis for the dismissal of the complaint.
The opinion is available online at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0135276p.pdf.
Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk. The information provided in this article has not been updated since its original posting and you should not rely on it until you consult counsel to determine if the content is still valid. We keep older articles online because it helps in the understanding of the development of immigration law.