Sankar v. I.N.S., 84-3341
| Decision Date | 16 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-3341,84-3341 |
| Citation | 757 F.2d 532 |
| Parties | Farouk and Fadwa SANKAR, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. . Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Henry A. Tesoroni, Tesoroni, LeRoy & George, Newark, N.J., for petitioners.
Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Civ. Div., Lauri Steven Filppu, Deputy Director, Rose Collantes, Hillary B. Burchuk, Charles E. Hamilton, III, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Alexander Ewing, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Before HUNTER and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges, and KELLY, * District Judge.
Petitioners, Farouk and Fadwa Sankar, appeal to this court from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. Secs. 1158(a) and 1153(h) (1982). In lieu of deportation, petitioners were granted the privilege of departing from the United States voluntarily under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1254(e) (1982). The Sankars present one primary issue for our consideration. They contend that the BIA evaluated their application for political asylum under an incorrect standard. Had the correct burden been applied, the Sankars believe the BIA would have decided in their favor. We conclude that the BIA applied the correct standard and acted properly in denying petitioners' requests for asylum.
Farouk and Fadwa Sankar, husband and wife, are native citizens of Syria, and entered the United States as non-immigrant visitors. Both concede that they are "deportable," Mr. Sankar because he worked without authorization from the Immigrational and Naturalization ("INS") in violation of 8 U.S.C. Secs. 1251(a)(9) and 1101(a)(15), and Mrs. Sankar because she remained in the United States longer than permitted under 8 U.S.C. Secs. 1251(a)(2) and 1101(a)(15). The Sankars base their applications for withholding of deportation and political asylum on their fears that if they return to Syria, Mr. Sankar will be subject to persecution because of his political activities.
Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1253(h), the Attorney General may withhold deportation of any alien if he determines "that such alien's life or freedom would be threatened in [his] country on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." The Supreme Court recently construed this statute to impose upon the alien the burden of proving that he or she faces a "clear probability of persecution" if he or she returns. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Stevic, --- U.S. ---- 104 S.Ct. 2489, 1501, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984). Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158, the Attorney General in his discretion may grant an alien political asylum if "the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title." To be considered a refugee, the alien must be outside his or her country, be unable or unwilling to return to it and unable or unwilling "to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country 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).
The BIA held, after reviewing all of the Sankars' evidence of persecution, that App. at 4. Both parties to this case recognize that we may overturn the decision of the BIA only if the Board abused its discretion. See So Chun Chung v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 602 F.2d 608, 612 (3d Cir.1979) () The Sankars, however, contend that the BIA's equation of "well-founded fear" with a standard calling for a "clear probability," "good reason," or "realistic likelihood" was so contrary to law as to justify our finding that the BIA abused its discretion. We disagree and hold that the BIA acted properly within its discretion.
Our court has held unequivocably...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Cardoza-Fonseca
...(case below); Carvajal-Munoz v. INS, 743 F.2d 562, 574 (CA7 1984); Youkhanna v. INS, 749 F.2d 360, 362 (CA6 1984); with Sankar v. INS, 757 F.2d 532, 533 (CA3 1985). The Third Circuit is the only Circuit to decide since our decision in INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Rebollo-Jovel v. I.N.S.
...and, in practical application, converge." Acosta, at 25. Although the circuits are divided on this question, compare Sankar v. INS, 757 F.2d 532, 533 (3d Cir.1985), with Cardoza-Fonseca, and the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in one of our cases apparently to resolve the dispute, see ......
-
Rasool v. INS
...88 L.Ed.2d 362 (1985) (denial of discretionary relief, such as asylum, may not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion);6San- kar v. I.N.S., 757 F.2d 532 (3d Cir.1985) (court will overturn decision of the BIA only if it abused its B. Withholding of Deportation— Respondent argues that the de......
-
Youssefinia v. I.N.S.
...on the question of whether the well-founded fear standard is more generous than the clear probability standard. Compare Sankar v. I.N.S., 757 F.2d 532 (3rd Cir.1985) (the well-founded fear standard and the clear probability standard are equivalent) with Cardoza-Fonseca v. I.N.S., 767 F.2d 1......