CHICAS
BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Dunne, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members
The respondent appeals from a decision of an immigration judge dated March 20, 1984, finding him deportable under section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
On appeal, the respondent has requested a waiver of the filing fee pursuant to
The respondent is a 33-year-old male native and citizеn of El Salvador. At the deportation hearing held on February 6, February 9, and March 20, 1984, the respondent conceded deportability under section 241(a)(2) for entry without inspection. We find that deportability hаs been established by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence as required by Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966), and
In order to qualify for withholding of deportation the alien must show that his life or freedom would be threatened in the country of deportation on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Section 243(h)(1) of the Act.
In order to qualify for asylum under the Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102, an applicant must establish that he is a “rеfugee” within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Act,
any person who is outside any country of such person‘s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded feаr of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
The respondent bears the burden of proоf in asylum or section 243(h) relief applications to establish by objective evidence either that he has a well-founded fear of persecution or that his life or
The respondent submitted in support of his application a cоpy of an Amnesty International Report for 1982, a copy of “Critique: Review of the Department of State‘s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1982” by Americas Watch, several newspaper rеports for 1982-83 concerning the violence in El Salvador, and part of a report called “Salvadorans in the United States” by the National Immigration and Alien Rights Project, including Appendix III.
The respondеnt testified that his only relatives in El Salvador are a half-sister and a great aunt. He was brought up by a National Guard officer who befriended him. From 1963 to 1970 he lived in and around the offices of the National Guard. In 1969 he joined the National Guard for a year.
The respondent has admitted to a series of illegal entries into the United States in search of work. As best the respondent could remember, he first entered the United States in September 1972; he remained for about 10 months before he was discovered by the Service and granted administrative voluntary departure. He reentered in 1973 and remained for about 10 months. He left again under administrative voluntary departure. The respondent came back into the United States in 1975 but voluntarily visited Mexico for 3 months before returning to the United States at the end of 1976. He returned on his own to El Salvador with the money he had saved by working in the United States in July 1982, but he had no identification papers. For several weeks, he attempted without success to obtain proper identification. In August 1982, hе went to his hometown to obtain a birth certificate. This village is reportedly in a disputed area partially controlled at times by the guerrillas. He was able to locate his birth certificate, but he was noticed and stopped by the local civil defense. The respondent was not able to identify himself satisfactorily to the guards because the National Guardsman he claimed to know refused tо identify the respondent by name when contacted by his captors. He alleges he was turned over to the army and imprisoned and interrogated for 8 days. The respondent claims that he was beaten and threatened with death during this time. Finally, the soldiers checked with the airport in San Salvador and discovered that the respondent had indeed re
Shortly thereafter, the respondent traveled to Costa Rica, to Nicaragua, and back to El Salvador. In January 1983, he visited Honduras in search of work but was unable to find any. He returned to El Salvador again, but he left for the United States after a few days. He entered the United States in February 1983.
He was discovered again by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This time he was deported in September 1983, after a hearing at which he appeared pro se. The respondent had applied for asylum before the immigration judge but withdrew the application. After his return to El Salvador, he left again in 5 days. He spent some time in Mexico and entered the United States illegally on December 13, 1983. He admits to having used at least two false names in the United States and that he served 90 days in jail fоr illegal entry in July 1975.
The respondent claims that he would be persecuted by the guerrillas in El Salvador. He fears that because of his knowledge of arms and of the National Guard they will try to force him to join thеm. He also fears that because he has been out of the country and is not known in El Salvador, he will be arrested and mistreated upon his return, as he was in August 1982.
In regard to his application for withholding of deрortation, we find that the respondent has not shown by a clear probability that his life or freedom will be threatened in El Salvador on account of his race, religion, nationality, political oрinion, or membership in a particular social group. In addition, regardless of whether his asylum claim is assessed in terms of demonstrating a “clear probability,” a “good reason,” a “reasonable рossibility,” or a “realistic likelihood” of persecution, he has not met his burden of proof under any standard so as to qualify him for asylum. See INS v. Stevic, supra.
The respondent‘s application and his testimony indicate that he has never been threatened by the guerrillas. His fear that they would attempt to force him to join them is sheer speculation and cannot support an application for asylum or withholding оf deportation. See Kashani v. INS, 547 F.2d 376 (7th Cir. 1977).
The respondent‘s fear of persecution by the government is based primarily on the generally high level of violence endemic to El Salvador at the present time аnd on the one incident which occurred in August 1982. In order to qualify for asylum or withholding of deportation the respondent must show that he would be singled out from the general population for persecution. See Fleurinor v. INS, supra; Cheng Kai Fu v. INS, 386 F.2d 750 (2d Cir. 1967), cert.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.