Ram v. I.N.S., 93-70596
| Decision Date | 15 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-70596,93-70596 |
| Citation | 46 F.3d 1144 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Anant RAM; Reeta Lata Ram; Sangeeta Ram; Reena Ram; Nazra Bibi Ram, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. . Submitted: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, PREGERSON and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Anant Ram, Nazra Bibi Ram and their three children ("the Rams"), ethnic Indian citizens of Fiji, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") upholding the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of their application for asylum and withholding of deportation. The Board concluded that the Rams failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race or political opinion. We have jurisdiction over this timely petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1105a(a). We deny the petition. 1
Section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158(a) authorizes the Attorney General, in her discretion, to grant asylum to an alien who is a refugee. The Act defines a refugee as an alien who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of origin "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(42)(A).
A well-founded fear of persecution has both objective and subjective components. Estrada-Posadas v. INS, 924 F.2d 916, 918 (9th Cir. 1991). The objective inquiry "requires a showing by credible, direct, and specific evidence of facts supporting a reasonable fear of persecution on the relevant ground." Shirazi-Parsa v. INS, 14 F.3d 1424, 1427 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
We review the Board's denial of asylum eligibility for substantial evidence. Estrada-Posadas, 924 F.2d at 918. Under this deferential standard, we will reverse the Board's determination that an alien has failed to prove a well-founded fear of persecution only if the evidence is "so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 112 S. Ct. 812, 817 (1992).
The Rams initially argue that the Board applied erroneous legal standards by addressing their attempt to demonstrate individualized persecution but failing to consider whether they had successfully established general persecution of an entire group based on race or political opinion. The Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") concedes that 8 C.F.R. Sec. 208.13(b)(2)(i)(A-B) permits an applicant to establish general persecution and avoid meeting the usual requirement of individual persecution, but it contends that the Rams did not raise this issue in their administrative appeal and that, in any case, it would not apply here.
Even assuming that the issue was timely raised, the Rams have not established general persecution of ethnic Indians in Fiji. An applicant must show a "pattern or practice" of persecution. The Rams have failed to show such a pattern. Although the State Department's Country Report for 1987 indicates that ethnic Indians are discriminated against by ethnic Fijians, the discrimination does not rise to persecution. Persecution requires a threat to the life or liberty of an individual or the infliction of suffering or harm on those who differ. That is not the case here. Fiji had no politically motivated killings and no massive arrests or detentions. During the time of the two coups, attacks on and harassment of ethnic Indians by ethnic Fijian citizens were unfortunately common, but the government has apparently sought to control such actions. Violence by civilians directed at other civilians does not amount to persecution unless it is government sponsored or the government is unwilling or unable to control the violence. According to the State Department, the number of human rights abuses "declined substantially" at the end of 1987. The Director of the Office of Asylum Affairs stated that, in recent months, "conditions in Fiji have improved measurably[,] [r]eports of human rights abuses have dropped sharply, the military has returned to barracks, vigor is returning to the judicial system and the press has resumed operations."
In our judgment, this method of proof is reserved for limited and egregious cases where an entire group is subject to persecution. See Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 852-53 (9th Cir. 1994) (). Given the lack of evidence of groupwide persecution of ethnic Indians on account of their race or political opinion, the only plausible method by which the Rams could establish asylum was by showing individualized persecution.
Next, the Rams argue that substantial evidence does not support the Board's determination that they failed to demonstrate individual past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. We disagree.
The Rams presented the following testimony and evidence in support of their allegations of present and past persecution: (1) Anant Ram testified that his brother-in-law, who served as Attorney General in the short-lived ethnic Indian led government, was briefly placed under house arrest following the first coup; (2) Ram testified that he and his family were subject to acts of violence, including an attack on their property by a group of civilians that resulted in damage to their car; (3) Ram testified that he feared that his daughters might be victims of rape because other girls in their school had been raped; (4) Ram testified, and the family introduced evidence, that ethnic Indians were discriminated against by ethnic Fijians.
None of this evidence establishes grounds for asylum. The action taken by the Fijian military against Anant Ram's brother-in-law, while it might conceivably constitute persecution against the relative, does not demonstrate persecution against Ram. Persecution against family members, absent attacks on the petitioner, is not sufficient to support asylum unless there is a "pattern of persecution closely tied to the petitioner." Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991). Ram testified that he was not a member of any political party. While he did campaign for his relative, there is no evidence that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ram v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv.
...first to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ, and then to this court. We denied their petition on January 12, 1995. Ram v. INS, 46 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 1995) (unpublished disposition). On November 16, 1994, while their petition to this court was pending, Petitioners moved to reopen their deportat......