Jonaitiene v. Holder
660 F.3d 267
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Jonaitiene and Bubenas are Lithuanian nationals who entered the United States in 2000 using illegally obtained visas obtained through bribery of a U.S. officer.
- Bubenas and Jonaitiene worked with Daruas Daugela and Darius Reika in a visa-fraud scheme; Bubenas came to the U.S. in March 2000, Jonaitiene in July 2000.
- They pled guilty to a remaining count after cooperating with the investigation; the government dismissed two counts and imposed one year of probation.
- Removal proceedings were initiated in 2008, charging them as inadmissible at entry and for a crime involving moral turpitude; they sought asylum and withholding of removal.
- They asserted fear of threats from Reika in Lithuania, and claimed Lithuania would be unable or unwilling to protect them; evidence included threatening calls and a fire at Jonaitiene’s mother’s apartment.
- The IJ denied asylum and withholding, the BIA affirmed; both found no nexus to a protected ground and insufficient evidence of government complicity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners established a claim to asylum. | Jonaitiene and Bubenas argue fear of persecution in Lithuania due to cooperation against visa fraud. | Hodder contends fear is not tied to a protected ground and government complicity is not shown. | Denied asylum; fear not tied to protected ground. |
| Whether fear of persecution is based on a protected ground or purely private conduct. | Social group based on informant status and government inducement to cooperate poses persecution claim. | No valid protected-ground basis; private dispute cannot support asylum. | No well-founded fear based on protected ground; asylum denied. |
| Whether petitioners are entitled to withholding of removal. | Cooperation and threats justify withholding given credible fear under high standard. | Without asylum nexus to a protected ground, withholding fails. | Withholding denied; requires a higher probability of persecution. |
| Whether error in continuance or remand decisions warrants relief. | Denied continuance and remand harmed development of evidence. | Due process not shown; no prejudice demonstrated. | No abuse of discretion; due process not shown; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wang v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2006) (fear of persecution not on protected ground; social-group argument rejected)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (persecution nexus requirement; protected ground necessary)
- Toure v. Holder, 624 F.3d 422 (7th Cir. 2010) (clear probability standard for withholding; asylum threshold)
- Kaharudin v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence review and nexus requirement guidance)
- Ramos v. Holder, 589 F.3d 426 (7th Cir. 2009) (social group and persecution framework in Seventh Circuit)
- In re Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357 (BIA 1996) (definition of 'particular social group' for refugee status)