Mohammed v. U.S. I.N.S.

• Decision Date: 11 January 1990
• Docket Number: No. 88-7528,88-7528
• Citation: 894 F.2d 409
• Parties: Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Lawal Keffi MOHAMMED, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 409

894 F.2d 409

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Lawal Keffi MOHAMMED, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 88-7528.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 1990. ^*

Decided Jan. 24, 1990.

Before WIGGINS, DAVID R. THOMPSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

SUMMARY

Petitioner Lawal Keffi Mohammed, a Nigerian national, appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming denial of political asylum and of withholding of deportation. The Board held that petitioner failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution as required for eligibility for asylum under section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158(a) (1982) or a clear probability of persecution as required for withholding of deportation under section 243(h), 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1253(h). As substantial evidence supports the Board's finding, we affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We will uphold the Board's decision denying asylum and withholding of deportation if supported by substantial evidence. Rebollo-Jovel v. INS, 794 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir.1986).

DISCUSSION

8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158(a) provides that the Attorney General may in his discretion grant asylum to an alien who qualifies as a "refugee" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(42)(A). Section 1101(a)(42)(A) defines a "refugee" as, in relevant part, an alien "who is unable or unwilling to return to" his country of nationality "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of ... membership in a particular social group, or political opinion...." Petitioner bears the burden of proof in establishing refugee status. Id. at 448. The "persecution or well-founded fear of persecution" standard of proof governs whether an alien is a "refugee." Blanco-Comarribas v. INS, 830 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1987); see also INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987). To meet this standard, petitioner must show that his fear of persecution is "both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable." Blanco-Comarribas, 830 F.2d at 1042 (citing Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1579 (9th Cir.1986)). The objective component "requires a showing by credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record, of facts that would support a reasonable fear that the petitioner faces persecution." Diaz-Escobar v. INS, 782 F.2d 1488, 1492 (9th Cir.1986).

Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on his familial relationship to his uncle or membership in the National Party of Nigeria.

No independent evidence supports petitioner's vague contentions that the military government detains the families of incarcerated political leaders because of their familial relationship, has kept his family under house arrest because of their relationship to his imprisoned uncle, or persecutes formerly active members (much less passive members such as petitioner) of the National Party of Nigeria. See Saballo-Cortez v. INS, 761 F.2d 1259, 1264 (9th Cir.1985) (alien was not a credible witness where his testimony was uncorroborated and inconsistent with his application for asylum); Quintanilla-Ticas v. INS, 783 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir.1986) (petitioner's uncorroborated testimony may be sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of prosecution where it refers to specific facts). The 1984 letter from petitioner's brother reporting his family's house arrest does not state the grounds of the arrest. Although the 1985 Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs letter confirms the uncle's detention, it states that, according to available information, petitioner's family is not under house arrest (so, even if the family was under house arrest as of petitioner's brother's 1984 letter, the uncontradicted testimony is that the family no longer is) and the government has not detained anyone because of family ties to a detainee. The submitted articles report arrests of family members of former political leaders only on criminal (smuggling), not political grounds. Even if family members living in the family compound are today under house arrest, petitioner's testimony indicates that he can avoid house arrest by living elsewhere in Nigeria. See Quintanilla-Ticas, 783 F.2d at 957 (stating that even if petitioners would face some danger in their home town, deportation would not require them to return to that area of the country).

Petitioner's arrest on the ground that he helped...