*1 Conclusion judgment affirm the
We therefore IV, III and
district court as to counts and intentional infliction of
defamation However, claims. be-
emotional distress presented
cause Ms. Lewis has sufficient retaliatory impermissible
evidence of an the direct method of
motivation under material
proof genuine to create a issue of trial, judgment
fact for we reverse the II
the district court on counts proceedings
remand for further consistent opinion. may
with this Ms. Lewis recover
her appeal. costs this part;
Affirmed in Reveesed and Re- part.
manded in CHATTA, Petitioner,
Adeel Hassan MUKASEY, Attorney
Michael B. States,
General of United
Respondent.
No. 07-2179. Appeals,
United States Court of
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Feb. 2008. April
Decided 2008.
Margaret (argued), R. Eric Sobota W. Ha, Austin, IL, Chicago, Sidley for Peti- tioner. Mai,
Anh-Thu P. Melissa Neiman-Kelt- Division, ing, Department of Justice Civil DE, Immigration Litigation, Washington, Jr.(argued), H. Dupree, Depart- Thomas Division, Appellate ment of Justice Civil DC, Staff, Washington, Respondent. CUDAHY, POSNER, Before EVANS, Judges. Circuit
EVANS, Judge. Circuit In September when he was 16 old, Chatta, years Adeel Hassan a citizen Pakistan, entered the United States at Chicago’s Airport International O’Hare entry a document. Immigra- without valid him at tion officials detained proceedings and removal were filed him under U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), likely § as an alien who was public charge, and 8 U.S.C. become 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(i), an as alien who was a valid possession not in applied asylum, document. Chatta removal, un- withholding protection the United Nations Convention der Following on Against Torture. immigration judge de- applications, to the Board appealed nied relief. Chatta affirmed Immigration Appeals, which Today we consider opinion. without of that decision. petition for review immigra- with an In Chatta’s interview O’Hare, he he was born official at said tion claiming to be thus Pakistan he did not have valid years old. He said passport and admitted Pakistani given to some- passport had a false paid. Chatta also said one his father He de- headed to Canada. was a student returning Pakistan and any fear of nied if he re- not be harmed said he would he had specifically whether turned. Asked about home be- other Deoband any returning angered reservations were race, nationality, leader) religion, po- cause of-his Maulvi (religious asked them to do opinion, membership particu- litical something about the broadcast. not. group, lar social he said he did broadcast, Maulvi then over the external *3 loudspeakers family of the mosque, At his before the message denouncing message a of the however, judge, Chatta testified that he Shi'a Chattas. The Shi'a Chattas con- feared and torture in Pakistan religion family family, because of and member- fronted the other Deoband which his Jhamwala, ship. He he born in said then left town. Chatta’s father was wor- Pakistan, 2,000 residents, a town of about family might ried that his have to leave in not 1988 as he had said at the town as well. father grandfa- and airport. He he in said lived Pakistan with apologized ther to the Shi'a Chattas and brothers, sister, his two older a parents, sent Chatta’s oldest brother to live in an- grandfather. and grandfather his His and other town. home, parents family remain in the but his later, days But two three or four of the sister now lives with an aunt in another young family men in the Shi'a asked Chat- town. He said he is not sure where his drugs refused, ta to sell for them. He and Pakistan, brothers live. When he left way on his home from school the men in grade. Chatta was the tenth He said he Chatta, stayed assaulted who home from left because he was “scared of people some day school for a or two. he When re- and the I might be killed.” turned, the young again men asked him to gave reasons he for his fear involve drugs, sell and he again refused. He was prominent family in Shi'a Jhamwala. attacked second time. This time family is Sunni Muslim. Al- Chatta was taken to a doctor fa- and his though family most of his particular- is not reported police; ther the incident to the ly religious, grandfather belongs his to the copy report is in the record. Two sect, Deoband consequently Sunni and later, days or three Chatta returned to family entire is affiliated with sect. school; again drugs; he was asked to sell town, Three Deoband families live in the again and he refused and was beaten. according majority and to Chatta the Later, on Independence Day, Pakistan’s the other residents are Shi'a Muslims. He Chatta and his riding brothers were Jhamwala, contends that in two or three motorbikes, celebrating. around on When powerful Shi'a families own land. One of they home, they returned heard families, their those also named Chatta but not mother Chatta, screaming and sister inside the petitioner related to our is well- entered, politicians they connected with house. they and offi- When saw their (To confusion, cers. minimize the grandfather we will and up pillars mother tied petitioner refer to the as Chatta and to the and their being sister held down in a rape Chattas.) family other as the Shi'a attempt. Three or four of the same men previously who had attacked Chatta were The two get along families did not be- grabbed the house. Chatta’s brother cause of economic religious differ- kitchen knife and stabbed one of the men ences. According testimony, to Chatta’s in the stomach. Chatta and his brothers the Shi'a Chatta directed its away rode on they their motorbikes. As mosque insulting to make announcements fled, Chatta’s oldest brother loudspeaker over its external was shot directed at leg. grandfather, neighbor- Deoband sect. Chatta’s brothers went to a brother, town, oldest and an ing individual from an- injured where took the telephoned quest for relief. He found that Chatta was a doctor and then brother (1) him that Their father told parents. discrepan- their not credible because of and his looking for Chatta “they” were documentary cies between the evidence attributed the attack to brothers. Chatta (2) claim, and Chatta’s the blatant contra- between the families religious differences dictions between Chatta’s interview mosque over and the confrontation subsequent asylum testimony regard- broadcasts. ing age, purpose traveling Canada, later, him to and whether he had a fear of
A
Chatta’s father sent
week
(3)
Canada,
Pakistan,
says
he has relatives.
returning
implau-
where
spoke
parents
to his
Chatta also said
sibility
surrounding
of the circumstances
arriving in the United States and
after
the arrest warrant
him.
In the
*4
told him the
continue to look
testimony,
face of Chatta’s incredible
the
says he could not
for his brothers. Chatta
judge
corroborating
looked for
evidence to
in
live with relatives elsewhere
Pakistan
bolster the claim for relief but found little
by
are controlled
the
because the
support
Finally,
judge
for his claim.
the
family and he would be found
Shi‘a Chatta
that,
if
determined
even Chatta were be-
In
an
and killed.
the record is
arrest
lieved,
failed
past perse-
he
to demonstrate
in connection with the
warrant
cution or a
fear
future
well-founded
stabbing incident.
persecution. He
that
the
failed
show
in
documentary evidence
the rec-
Other
government
Pakistani
was unable or un-
describing
an
his
ord includes
affidavit
not
willing
protect
could
family,
religious background, and the
perse-
show a well-founded fear of future
departure
circumstances which led to his
cution when his
remained unharmed
newspaper
are also
from Pakistan. There
Further, any potential
in
crimi-
Pakistan.
articles, country condition re-
and Internet
in
prosecution
might
nal
that Chatta
face
ports prepared by both the United States
enforcement,
be
law
simple
Pakistan would
Amnesty
Department of State and
Inter-
not
find there is substan-
persecution. We
Also,
are statements from
national.
there
support
tial evidence in the record to
the
mother,
father,
grandfather,
and the
immigration judge’s conclusions.
of his school. His mother’s
headmaster
Immigration
the Board of
When
says
enemy
that
will not let
statement
“his
immigration judge’s
affirms an
de
Appeals
kill him on his
go
probably
it
and will most
comment,
review the im
cision without
we
says
father
that Chatta’s
return.” His
it is the
migration judge’s decision because
“life
here. And he will not
danger
is
be
Qureshi
final
determination.
v.
agency
America,
study
able to
here. When
Gonzales, 442
F.3d
complete
can
his studies and his life will be
petitioner
that a
is
determination
says
danger.”
grandfather
out of
His
asylum
upheld
“sup
be
if
eligible for
must
go.”
it
“enemies will not let
His
substantial,
reasonable,
pro
ported by
left
headmaster said that Chatta
school
record considered
“fight
village.”
of a
in the
bative evidence on the
because
1105a(a)(4).
INS
as whole.” 8 U.S.C.
addition,
In
Dr. Joan Liautaud testified
481,
Elias-Zacarias,
478,
v.
502 U.S.
diagnosis
at
as to her
that
(1992);
815,
Other evidence Torture, Against claim was under the Convention judge that the the to convince likely would be relatives Chatta must show from Chatta’s The letters true. torture support subject amounting to harm do his headmaster short, rea- instigation In it was of or with the consent of any detail. the claim in 1208.18(a)(1). that there is a judge to find 8 C.F.R. public for the official. sonable warrant is that the arrest that he would be possibility He also fails to establish real legitimate. subject to torture. that Chat- significant hurdle reasons, petition the for re- For these claim involves that that his ta faces is view is Denied. by private religion persecuted
was But religious another sect. individuals CUDAHY, Judge, concurring Circuit non-government are persecutors the when judgment. the the actors, respondent must show or perpetuated government condoned join I in the result and much of completely helpless not, however, agree I with rationale. do INS, F.3d Roman v. him. protect majority and the apparent view of the Cir.2000). (7th already men As we Judge that Shi‘a Chattas Immigration tioned, of the majority population strongly influenced could not have if the Chat country is Even Shi‘a Sunni. demograph- village because in Chatta’s hometown powerful tas as were in Pakistan. predominance ic Sunnis why to see says, it is difficult as he nothing incredible about think there is parts in other be unsafe would wielding a local effective religious element Further, contest that he does not *6 majority though far from a animus even stabbing, in a involved he was But, by the same factor in the to know the condition claims not token, changed of a result skeptical am likely that Chatta It seems more victim. probably Chatta could on remand because prosecution, criminal legitimate is afraid of by moving security problems cure his own The inves impermissible persecution. where the area of Pakistan to a different crimes which would be tigation of incidents place jeop- him in would not local situation not constitute States does in the United Hence, persecution exposure ardy. Ashcroft, v. Guchshenkov persecution. requiring without would removed be Substantial 366 F.3d (cid:127) emigrate to leave Pakistan the conclu supports in the record evidence United States. judge that Chatta sion of persuasive claim has not established
asylum. for withhold eligibility establish
To 1231(b)(3), removal under 8 U.S.C.
ing of probabili a clear must demonstrate Pakistan. if removed to
ty likely than not that
It must more be Ashcroft, persecuted. be Prela
would (7th Cir.2005). Because this
standard is claim also fails.
this