Meas v. Ashcroft
Decision Date | 09 April 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 03-1025.,03-1025. |
Citation | 363 F.3d 729 |
Parties | Maly MEAS, Petitioner, v. John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Hargwayne Gegziabhre and Kwao Amegashie, St. Paul, MN, for petitioner.
Brenda M. O'Malley, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
Maly Meas, a Cambodian citizen, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge's (IJ's) denial of the applications of Meas and three of her children for asylum and withholding of removal. After careful review of the record, we deny the petition. See Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, No. 02-3692, 360 F.3d 915, at 918, 2004 WL 307451, at *3 (8th Cir. Feb.19, 2004) (standard of review).
Initially, we reject Meas's contention that her due process rights were violated because the translator did not fully convey her fear of persecution. See Escudero-Corona v. INS, 244 F.3d 608, 614 (8th Cir.2001) ( ). The transcript of Meas's testimony as a whole was understandable and coherent, and thus Meas was able to convey her story to the IJ; and more important, Meas has not explained how she was prejudiced by the alleged deficiencies of the translator. See Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1994) ( ).
As to the merits, we agree with the IJ that the record shows past persecution of Meas by the Khmer Rouge from 1975-79, see Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 597-98 (8th Cir.2002), but that the likelihood of any such persecution in the future was rebutted by State Department reports, see Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 930-31 (8th Cir.2002) ( ); Perinpanathan, 310 F.3d at 599 n. 1 ( ).
As to more recent events involving Meas and the Cambodian People's Party (CPP), the IJ found Meas's statements and testimony credible (other than her pre-hearing statements about receiving a bribe). See Hamzehi v. INS, 64 F.3d 1240, 1242 (8th Cir.1995) ( ). Based on Meas's evidence, the record reveals that before she and three of her children left Cambodia in 1996 and 1997 on diplomatic passports, (1) there were unfulfilled threats received by Meas's husband, a member of the Cambodian National Assembly who belonged to the National United Front for a Neutral, Peaceful, Cooperative, and Independent Cambodia (FUNCINPEC), a rival party of the CPP; (2) Meas secretly carried messages for FUNCINPEC; (3) Meas's children were followed, and one of her daughters received a vague threat related to Meas; and (4) Meas received three letters, in February 1996, October 1996, and February 1997, requesting her assistance in convincing her husband to help the CPP. A reasonable fact-finder could conclude, as the IJ did, that this evidence fell short of showing past persecution by the CPP. Cf. Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fede v. Redington
...v. Long, 301 F.3d 1095, 1105 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Lim, 794 F.2d 469, 470-71 (9th Cir. 1986)); cf. Meas v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 729, 730 (8th Cir. 2004) (considering similar issues in immigration context). Petitioner claims that the trial judge should have declared a mistri......
-
Tun v. Gonzales
...as a whole [is] understandable and coherent, and thus [the petitioner is] able to convey her story to the IJ." Meas v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 729, 730 (8th Cir.2004). It remains necessary, however, to ensure testimony is coherent before dismissing allegations of infirm translation. It is also n......
-
Setiadi v. Gonzales, 04-3409.
...persecution does not normally include unfulfilled threats of physical injury, like those made by Agus against Setiadi. Meas v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 729, 731 (8th Cir.2004) (citing Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000)). Even minor beatings or limited detentions do not usually rise to t......
-
Ze Bei Zheng v. Holder
...did not, and (ii) the gaps and insufficiencies in Zheng's testimony cannot be attributed to translation errors. As in Meas v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 729, 730 (8th Cir.2004), there was no showing of prejudicial translation because “[t]he transcript of [Zheng's] testimony as a whole was understan......