*1 Security part D of Title IV of the Social relating dischargeability all matters in the Act. of debtors be found discharge provi- and not in isolated Bankruptcy Code dispute that There is no Cervantes’ non-bankruptcy codes.” Id. sions and that it is owed under state law debt rejected this But the district court addition, municipality. we is owed to a the bank- argument. logical “However support recently held that a debt for child analysis, it is con- ruptcy court’s structural sup county both “in the nature of to a is of the trary plain meaning to the statutes under Title IV-D of port” and enforceable history legislative as to what little as well Leibow Security Act. See In re Social bankruptcy court is available. Therefore, itz, 799, 217 F.3d 800-01. Cer [656(b) simply because ignore ] section County pre-judg vantes’ debt Id. part Bankruptcy code.” it is not all three payments ment AFDC meets at 814. 656(b) and is not criteria under section bankruptcy.8 dischargeable are Neither Leach nor Richards the BAP is RE- The decision of court, but both reflect binding upon this VERSED. two general proposition that when stat co-existence, we capable utes are should See Resource
regard each as effective. Investments, Army Corps Inc. v. U.S. (9th Cir.1998); 1162, 1165
Eng’rs, 151 F.3d Bank v. also Connecticut Nat’l Ger
see
main, 253, 1146, 249, 112 S.Ct. 503 U.S. (1992) (“[S]o long
tency statutory in the conflicting capable sections are co-exis AND IMMIGRATION tence, positive repugnancy and there is no SERVICE, NATURALIZATION Therefore, we between them. conclude Respondent. 656(b) provides indepen that section No. 98-70965. upon sup which to find a child dent basis any port nondischargeable debt bank Appeals, United States Court ruptcy proceeding under Title 11. Ninth Circuit. 16, Argued Submitted June 656(b) section to this Application C. case Disposition and Dissent Memorandum Sept. Filed 656(b) Having determined that section effect, July independent has we must determine Withdrawn: from dis- prohibits whether it Cervantes Opinion July Filed: $4,161 County he owes to the charging payments. pre-judgment AFDC Sec- 656(b) prohibits discharge of a tion (1) under state law to a state or
debt owed (2) “in nature of
municipality, that is (3) under
support,” and that is enforceable changes Welfare and Institutions we conclude that Cervantes’ debt is to California 8. Because 656(b), decisions in non-dischargeable section we Code section 11350 render our under moot. County’s arguments that and Visness need not address the Ramirez *2 FLETCHER; by Judge
Opinion opinion by Judge CYNTHIA Dissenting HALL. HOLCOMB FLETCHER, Judge: Circuit a cit- Agbuya, Bunuan *3 Josephine Esther petitions for review Philippines, izen Appeals’ Immigration of Board of (BIA) from an appeal her of dismissal (IJ) ap- her denial of Judge’s Immigration of withholding asylum and plication for 8 U.S.C. deportation pursuant 1253(h). 1158(a) Agbuya argues and §§ fear that has a that she well-founded (NPA) persecute will Army People’s New and Philippines, if she returns be “on account persecution will that such to the NPA’s opposition of’ jurisdiction cause. We have communist the BIA’s for of petition review entertain 106(a) of the to section pursuant decision (INA), 8 Nationality Act and Immigration 1105a(a).1 petition grant § We U.S.C. asy- for review, petitioner eligible find for for withhold- application grant lum and deportation. ing of I. Luzon, in northern Agbuya lived
Esther since and had worked Philippines, Encino, California, Perez, for M. Raquel Company in Mining the Benguet 1980 for petitioner. re- She was personnel department. D.C., no- Keener, terminating employees or Washington, sponsible E. Donald being Litigation, tifying United Immigration individuals Office of Justice, infractions and em- Washington, for various Department disciplined of States 1985- D.C., From respondent. ployment-related difficulties. for the 1991, implemented a series company period, Ag- During this of retrenchments. the union problems with buya had serious re- miners, disagreed with who in which policy and the order trenchment On one FLETCHER, being dismissed. SCHROEDER, workers were Before: her, occasion, rallied against the miners HALL, Judges. Circuit and here, began proceedings before deportation Immigration and Immi- Illegal Reform 1. The 1, 1997, (IIRIRA) order April where final grant Responsibility Act of 1996 30, 30, was issued after October deportation Pub.L. September 1996. See enacted on 1996, provide (Division C), “transitional rules” IIRIRA's 110 Stat. 3009-546. No. 104-208 that, INA, exceptions relevant to 106(a) with certain repealed IIRIRA section appeals jurisdiction has judicial review court a new replaced it with 106(a) IIRI- of the INA. See old section This of the INA. under provision at section 242 309(c)(1) (4), 1, 110 Stat. 3009-625- §§ April on See RA repeal 1997. became effective where, However, 309(a). 26. § for cases IIRIRA displaying signs that firing. family called for her has phone received several calls Agbuya learned that the union had been checking on her whereabouts. infiltrated members of the New Peo- (“NPA”),
ple’s Army an armed communist II. guerilla group responsible for numerous 17, 1995, On October an Immigration and kidnappings. began deaths She Judge denied Agbuya’s application asy- telephone demanding receive calls her res- lum and deportation, withholding ignation threatening family if she granted voluntary departure. Although comply. failed Afraid retaliation the IJ had “no difficulty with her credibili- NPA, resigned July ty,” she concluded had not September On almost two established a well-founded fear persecu- resignation, months after her Agbuya was *4 affirmed, tion. The BIA concluding that waiting pick for her husband to inup any persecution Agbuya had previously Baguio City, fourteen kilometers from the suffered was not on account of her mine, when she was by three abducted opinion. The BIA found that “[t]he direct heavy-set men whom she did not know. and circumstantial evidence does sup- They forced her into a car and drove her port inference that the miners’ threats to a house over an away. They hour held against and actions her were motivated by week, captive for one keeping her anything other than anger their at adverse blindfolded the entire subjecting time and personnel actions ... they which consid- physical occasion, her to abuse. On one ered to be unfair or in violation of their they placed gun a During her mouth. contract.” Agbuya timely petitioned this the course of her captivity, Agbuya’s kid- court for review of the BIA’s decision. nappers identified themselves as sympathetic
members
A.
plight
General
Asylum
Standards
Eli-
for
Benguet miners.
kidnappers
gibility
The NPA
they
told her
would try
kangaroo
her in a
eligible
To be
asylum,
for
Agbu
for her
court
abuse
and mistreatment
must show that
ya
she
“unwilling
or
Agbuya
workers.
was extremely
unable” to return to her home country
frightened to say anything about her view
persecution
“because of
or a well-founded
situation,
of the labor
she simply
so
told
persecution
race,
fear of
on account of
the men that
should sit down and religion, nationality, membership
par
in a
present
government.
ideas to the
ticular
group,
social
or
opinion.”
life,
Agbuya was afraid for her own
and for
(a)(42)(A)
§
8 U.S.C.
1101
(defining “refu
the welfare of her youngest child who was
To
gee”).
establish a well-founded fear of
nursing
still
at the time.
persecution, Agbuya must show her fear to
guerillas
The
a
demanded
ransom of
objectively
be both
subjec
reasonable and
150,000 pesos
family.
from her
tively
Fisher,
She was
genuine. See
966
omitted).
(internal
citation
Id. at 1489
re
statutory
grounds,
of the
is one
(9th
Ilchert,
Cir.
F.2d
v.
723
Singh v. Desir
been satisfied.”
have
quirements
of a Haitian
1509;
1988),
v.
the case
Ilchert,
Briones
we examined
at
see
63 F.3d
threatened,
(9th Cir.1999);
arrested,
INS,
175 F.3d
man who
(9th
be
INS,
Cir.
F.3d
Ton Ton Macoutes
v.
Borja
assaulted
994;
Ratnam,
at
Rodri
We exam
1999);
pay
154 F.3d
bribes.
he refused to
cause
n. 23
98 F.3d
in the context
Desir’s refusal
guez-Roman
ined
Cir.1996).
whole and
system as a
Haitian
accede
that “Desir’s refusal
concluded
persecution
past
Evidence
system founded
to extortion
fear.
a well-founded
alone can establish
in his classification
resulted
on extortion
trig
Establishing past
id.
See
Id.
subversive.”
and treatment
of well-
presumption
a rebuttable
gers
8See
of future persecution.
fear
founded
208.13(b)(1)(i).
can re
The INS
§
C.F.R.
Analysis
B.
pre
by showing by a
presumption
Agbu
the IJ found
In this
that conditions
ponderance of the evidence
worthy of
testimony to be credible and
ya’s
an extent that
changed to such
“have
evidence,
BIA
and the
did
weight as
full
fear
has a well-founded
longer
applicant no
*5
ac
Accordingly, we
not find otherwise.
were to
if he or she
being persecuted
of
true. See
testimony
cept Agbuya’s
as
Id.
return.”
(9th
INS,
1353, 1356
94 F.3d
Singh v.
relies
asylum applicant
an
Where
Cir.1996).
over
of
contention
point
political
account of
persecution on
past
on
persecution of
for
NPA’s
the reason
the
presump
a
to establish
rebuttable
opinion
view, Agbuya failed
In the BIA’s
Agbuya.
perse
future
of
tion of a
fear
well-founded
kidnapping
motivated
that the
was
to show
(1)
a
cution,
that
she was
must show
she
actuat-
opinion-imputed or
by any political
(2)
politi
a
she holds
persecution,
of
victim
neutrality
position
political
of
by “any
or
her,
imputed
or has had one
opinion
cal
had.”
she
have
which
(3)
to or
opinion
known
political
was
her
is little doubt that
disagree. There
We
(4)
and
the
persecutors,
imputed
her
by
guerillas
the
by
out
Agbuya
singled
her actual
account of
persecution was on
unpopular
for
because
the
Sangha
political opinion.
imputed
or
Ben-
employee
an
took
actions she
while
Cir.1997).
(9th
103 F.3d
of the communist
In the context
guet.
been
applicant
When
has
Philippines,
in the
insurgency
guerilla
her,
imputed to
our
opinion
of an
because
however,
took
personnel actions
Agbuya’s
persecutor
the
analysis
how
focuses
impact on
importance beyond their
on an
alle
actions and
applicant’s
perceived the
that the
evidence shows
the miners. The
their abuse.
what motivated
giances, and
ac-
interpreted Agbuya’s
NPA
communist
Sangha, we held that:
Agbuya
their cause:
as an affront to
tions
political opin-
establishing an imputed
aligned with the
politically
viewed as
ion,
turns
from
inquiry
away
the focus
government,
and the
and
company
mining
the
the victim to
views
the views of
Indeed,
fact that
the
against
the NPA.
however,
consider,
persecutor.
We
threatened
kidnapped
Agbuya
opin-
political
own
the persecutor’s
position
resigned she had
only
ions,
political views the
rather the
after
threatened
monitor
that the NPA
or in error attributes
persecutor rightly
in the future indicates
her activities
persecutor
If
attrib-
to his victims.
the NPA as an ene-
by
victim,
was identified
opinion to the
political
uted
simply
job
she held.
more than
attribution,
my for
imputed
this
upon the
acted
explained
Further,
captors
NPA
Agbuya’s
political
applicant’s
view becomes
specific
objected
only
Act.
required under
opinion as
employment-related actions she took at the
Ilchert,
communist NPA. See Desir v.
mine,
“wrongdoings
Cir.1988).
but also to her
to the F.2d 723
Philippines,”
of the
laborers
statement
The dissent argues
Agbuya’s
perse-
demonstrating
opinion
the content of the
cution
“economically-motivat-
amounted to
imputed
Agbuya.
per-
Once she was
persecution.”
ed
Dissent at 8396. The
enemy
particular
ceived as an
group
dissent
Agbuya
stresses that
did not make
workers —those at
Benguet Corpora-
any political statements or consciously side
targeted
tion—the NPA
an enemy
anyone
in the struggle. As discussed
country
of the “laborers” of the whole
above,
purported
such
silence and neutrali-
opponent
guerilla
thus as an
of the
group.
ty
Instead,
does not decide the matter.
link
explicitly by Agbuya’s
This
was made
we must look at how she was
viewed
persecutors,
op-
who berated her for
eyes
persecutors. Here,
gueril-
posing
egalitarian ideology by acting
la NPA
Agbuya
viewed
enemy
as an
miners,
unfairly toward the
with whom
miners,
NPA,
and the communist
they sympathized.
Agbuya
cause.
identify
need not
herself in
imputed political
We have found an
opin
way
qualify
asylum.2
“likely
ion
situations where it is
that the
abducted,
She was
falsely imprisoned for a
persecutors
will attribute
week, hit,
a gun,
threatened with
and told
applicants.”
views of others to the
San
she would be tried in a kangaroo court
1489;
Briones,
gha, 103 F.3d at
see also
because of a
opinion imputed to
F.3d at
(finding petitioner
had
persecutors.
hap-
All of this
political opinion
hostile
imputed
to him
pened
job,
after she left her
indicating
persecutors).
his NPA
The NPA kid
the NPA
Agbuya
was after
what
napped
and threatened
because
perceived
to be her
views. She
perceived
she was
pro-government
to be
*6
not,
indicates,
as the dissent
persecut-
enemy
and therefore an
of the miners and
ed because she was rich or
the NPA.
middle class.
pay
Just as the refusal to
the
Instead,
persecuted,
many
Ton Ton
like
gave
imputed
Macoutes
rise to an
so
Desir,
political
refugees who seek
opinion in
safe haven in
Agbuya’s
here
the Unit-
States,
identification with
ed
Benguet
because she
management
was identified as an
as a
job
such,
result of her
led to
opponent
her classifica
of communism. As
she is
tion
opponent
and treatment as an
of the
entitled
refugee
status.3
2. The dissent
inapposite, stating
finds Desir
as one of
Agbuya’s
its causes.
It follows that
utterly implausible
that “it is
perceived
that labor-man-
opposition
regard-
to this cause was
agement relations is as
opposition
central to the under-
ed as
to the NPA itself.
pinnings
Philippines' political system
of the
reading
3. The dissent’s
of our decision as
extortion was to
system
the Haitian
“essentially conflat[ing] an economic motiva-
However,
under Duvalier.” Dissent at 972.
one,”
tion with a
at
dissent
Department Report
the State
on Human
misapprehends
opinion.
our
We believe that
Rights Practices for 1994 makes clear that the
clearly
the record
Agbu-
establishes that while
government
Philippines
of
engaged
in
ya's
by Benguet
initial threats
miners were
ongoing
struggle
an
violent
with the commu-
motivated,
economically
NPA,
the NPA's later in-
nist
and the record demonstrates that
volvement on behalf of its laborers and in
guerillas' advocacy
central to the
of commu-
egalitarian
furtherance of its own
labor-man-
nism
egalitarian
is the belief in more
labor-
agement
agenda
po-
relations
fact,
establishes
management relations.
in 1990 the
persecution.
litical nature of her later
Benguet
NPA
Mining Corp., stealing
raided
bars,
gold
millions in cash and
disagree
silver
We also
with the dissent's claim
taking
company’s
two
of
finding
past persecution
executives hos-
that our
of
conflicts
tage.
newspaper
A
article on the incident
with the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Cuevas
suggested
using
1995).
that the NPA was
the hos-
Our 8 U.S.C. asylum under a rebutta- tion as entitles her to past persecution 1158(b). of § fear of a well-founded presumption ble C.F.R. persecution. future GRANTED. PETITION 208.13(b)(1)(i). presumption This § “that since the by evidence overcome be HALL, Circuit HOLCOMB CYNTHIA in conditions persecution occurred time the dissenting: Judge, changed to such have Philippines] [the in this case majority opinion The a well- longer no has [Agbuya] that extent political persecu- meaning of stretches if she being persecuted fear of founded perse- who are cover those aliens tion to Id.; see also Matter to return.” were Be- grounds. economic purely cuted 1989). (BIA Chen, N. Dec. 16 20 I. & has the only Congress I believe that cause to rebut in case failed The this INS laws immigration our authority to re-write showing the effect by presumption manner, I dissent. BIA it country conditions. The changed De to the according that State noted self I. country conditions report on partment’s opinion’s recitation kidnappings majority Philippines in The in the problem in a few sentences continue to be over glosses facts thought states BIA report also that the Philippines. sequence of events why not been successful Petitioner was explaining has government pivotal rights abuses working human curbing began continued Petitioner abducted. present NPA. The INS Company person- as a Mining committed Benguet the presump rapidly to overcome ed no evidence in 1980. Petitioner nel clerk fear has a well-founded Agbuya personnel Company’s tion within the promoted were to return if she persecution responsible Petitioner was department. Philippines. terminating tasks for the unenviable notifying workers when workers pre- did not rebut the INS Because habitual ab- disciplined for being had well-founded sumption sences, or inef- company property, theft of on account fear practices. ficient work by denying erred opinion, the BIA *7 asylum. See 8 eligible was Company began when the Ilchert, 208.13(b); Singh v. § C.F.R. downsizing programs series (9th Cir.1995). In addi- F.3d Compa- hostility among much sparked tion, did rebut because INS miners, became Petitioner ny’s unionized likely than not it is more presumption that fierce members’ rod for union lightning or, be life freedom would Agbuya’s At one company policies. criticism Philip- upon returning threatened was assaulted meeting, Petitioner heated appli- denying her by BIA erred pines, the After a sec- president. the local union deportation. See withholding of cation for in the union downsizing round of ond 208.16(b)(2); at Singh, F.3d § 8 C.F.R. seeking management, petitioned members union also discharge. The Petitioner’s company’s gate main rally at the staged a with this case to BIA remand We from of- be removed demanding that she applica- petitioner’s grant instructions its downsized Company again fice. The and to withholding deportation tion 1991, making Peti- in 1990 and workforce Attorney Gener- present matter contrast, Here, Ag- See id. value. between nomic that the feud There was no indication she was viewed buya persecuted because applicants was squatters and the the NPA and the communist enemy of laborers parties' as an anything than both on other based eco- cause. advantage of the take land's desire to target of even more scorn from tioner and I’d been doing unlawful termi- work, angry laborers. At re- Petitioner nation to the employees. telephone threatening ceived calls her and So, Q. they were primarily interested family if resign. did Petitioner in your alleged injustices that you subjected also other harassment committed to the you workers while from workers: At point disgruntled one were employed? her, worker swung chair at union A. Uh-huh. members even called her a terrorist. Q. yes? Is that addition, her had to be children escorted to their school buses because of concerns A. Yes sir. safety. up about Fed with this union So, Q. their main problem you with harassment, and also harboring concerns was the fact that they didn’t think the propriety about of some of her supervi- you were fair being you when actions, resigned sor’s in July Petitioner employed Benguet with Cor- 1991. Approximately two months after poration? resignation, three identify- individuals A. Yes sir.
ing themselves as NPA members abducted Petitioner. Q. [D]id rebels express any other important question in this case is problems with you other than those happened
not whether what to Petitioner that stemmed your employ- from Rather, persecution. panel here ment? must focus why Petitioner was abduct- ed and abused. Petitioner described her Yeah, A. they told me that my per- it’s captors’ great length motivations sonality dealing with the workers. hearing before Immigration Judge: Q. You were too harsh on them. They wanted to accept me the faults They A. think I was strict too on them. that I’d been doing during my work or Q. anything Was else discussed? during my in that Benguet gold tenure more, A.
operation Nothing sir. accept that I’d been doing, that I have had wrongdoings to the la- Administrative Record 67-69. This was Philippines.... Yeah, borers of the followed questioning further on re-di- they told me that belonged to the rect. to elicit Trying testimony to estab- group they sympathized lish persecution, Petitioner’s coun- Benguet workers of Corporation be- sel the following exchange initiated about cause claimed that we had been so captors: abusive and we’d been threatening them Q. Did you position ever state your discharged. to be to the NPA Philippine or to the Administrative Record at 57. On cross- government? *8 examination, INS Counsel asked further A. position What referring are to you questions probe to Petitioner’s views re- as, sir? garding why she was abducted: Q. political opinion. Your In other Q. During you the that time were be- words, you did ever discuss what ing individuals, by held these what you were on? side did they you? tell say Did they No, A. I didn’t anything you you anybody. to or ask side any questions? Administrative Record at 71. Petitioner
then stated that she was to afraid make They A. told that I had any political me been abu- statements she because be-
sive, I that had coercing been the doing lieved that so antagonize would her employees Benguet Corporation captors. actions, made all which were viewed her short, clearly establishes this record In with employment her scope the within by the singled out was
that Petitioner
unduly harsh.
Company, as
the
in a
actions
unpopular
of her
NPA because
Company manage-
conflict between
bitter
persecution as
viewing Petitioner’s
Petitioner’s abduction
ment and labor.
nature,
places
majority
in
the
campaign
lengthy
aof
the culmination
that Petitioner
emphasis on the facts
great
intimi-
to harass and
only
members
by union
threatened
kidnapped and
“was
after
discharge.
force her
and that the
position
to
resigned
Petitioner and
had
date
she
hu-
the
her activities
identified as
to monitor
plainly
NPA
Petitioner
threatened
majori-
fact the
downsiz-
From this
mining company’s
in the future.”
of a
man face
identified
“she was
inhu-
that
subjected
ty
concludes
ing program,
sim-
more than
enemy
as an
the NPA
the
a result. Like
harassment
mane
conclusion
held.” This
job she
ply the
Petitioner
harassment
I find the
majority,
The NPA
not follow.
simply does
my
But
disturbing.
quite
had to endure
persecute Petitioner
have continued
aside,
nothing
I can find
feelings
personal
any number
resignation for
after her
even
to indicat-
comes close
record that
in this
sheer vindictive-
stemming from
of reasons
persecuted on
was ever
that Petitioner
ing
example
an
of her
to make
ness
desire
opinion.
imputed political
account of
company employees
other
to deter
order
union members
the
disciplining
from
II.
have felt that
they may
future. Or
review of
unusually thorough
After
resignation,
kidnapping her after her
Immigra
the
prompted
the evidence that
from the Com-
less “heat”
would encounter
ap
deny
asylum
Petitioner’s
Judge
tion
Perhaps
authorities.
pany and the
Ap
Immigration
Board of
plication, the
of cash
desperate
need
found itself
grounds
appeal on the
peals dismissed
abduction,
targeted
day
had
prove
had failed to
that she
as someone whose relatives
Petitioner
of her
on account
been
150,000
up
pesos
likely to come
with
finding, we
reviewing that
opinion.
know,
captors
we
For all
in ransom.
“To
expertise.
BIA’s
must defer
Peti-
mistakenly
believed
may have
find that
finding we must
the BIA
reverse
Company
for the
working
still
tioner was
contrary]
only supports [a
the evidence
her —she had
day they abducted
on the
conclusion,
Elias-
compels it.” INS v.
previously.
two months
less than
resigned
Zacarias,
481 n.
S.Ct.
502 U.S.
de-
prefer not to
majority,
I’d
Unlike
(1992). Moreover, the
812,
971
I
profoundly
majority
am
troubled that the
political
certain
views to Briones. Briones
effectively ignores the substantial evidence
employed by
government
in a civil
by disregarding
standard
this BIA conclu-
against
contrast,
war
By
the NPA.
Peti-
speculation
sion on the basis of far-fetched
tioner was employed by
private
a
firm
chronology
about the
of events.
involved
a labor dispute with its employ-
ees.
It is
therefore
difficult to
majority’s
justification
The
second
charac-
terize
activity
political
Briones’s
as
reversing
BIA’s determination stems
and
nonpolitical.
from a
Petitioner’s
single
quote
out-of-context
about
as
“wrongdoings
Petitioner’s
to the laborers
INS,
Similarly,
in Vera-Valera v.
of the Phillippines.” The majority con-
(9th Cir.1998),
F.3d 1036
this court held
cludes
this quote
that
demonstrates that
that
prominent,
Vera-Valera’s
publicly-ar
imputed
the kidnappers
to Petitioner some
support
ticulated
for a Peruvian govern
vague ideological opposition
rights
project
ment
designed to weaken the
of
everywhere
workers
in the country.
Luminoso,
Sendero
and
subsequent
his
majority
The
leaps
then
to the conclusion persecution at the hands of Sendero Lumi-
opposition
obviously
rendered Pe- noso members who “accused him being
of
titioner
“an opponent of the guerilla
a spy for
government,”
amounted to
group” in the
captors.
minds of her
The persecution on account
political
of his
opin
transcript quotations
repro-
extensive
I
Id. at 1038-39. Petitioner never
ions.
duce above demonstrate that
a
such
read-
mentioned supporting
government
of
ing of
testimony
Petitioner’s
implausible.
is
the Philippines, nor did 'the NPA ever
captors
Her
quite obviously objected to
being
accuse her of
a government support
the employment actions
had
Petitioner
er.
single
taken at a
captors
mine. When her
INS,
Borja
v.
(9th
175 F.3d
asked Petitioner about her
toward
views
Cir.1999) (en banc), this court determined
NPA,
she told them that
did not
an alien who was
after she
side
anybody.
with
There is no evidence
told armed
operatives
NPA
that she would
in the record that
kidnappers
the NPA
join
organization
because she was
viewed Petitioner
an ideological person.
“pro-government,”
perse-
had indeed been
majority’s
conclusion that
the BIA
cuted
“on
opin-
account
lacked substantial evidence to support its
ions.” The court went to great
lengths
puzzling, given
is
pages
conclusion
Borja’s
note
“outspoken political opinion,”
testimony
Petitioner’s
where she unambig-
drawing
and her
“a
line in the
uously
singled
stated that she was
out be-
sand.” Id.
outspokenness
at 736. This
unpopular
cause of
employment actions
in sharp contrast
to Petitioner’s silence.
perceived
in dealing
harshness
union members.
cites Desir
Il
Finally,
majority
chert,
(9th Cir.1988).
1995). petitioners were harassed who
absentee landlords to sell their they refused
threatened after who were squatters land to agricultural ABOVIAN; Lousine Soghomon The Court of the NPA. acting on behalf Abovian, Abovian; Iskoui po squatters’ regardless of the noted that Petitioners, orientation, the fact remained litical purchasing were interested rice.” Id. grow “in order to simply land AND IMMIGRATION wisely deter Circuit Seventh SERVICE, NATURALIZATION petition mined that harassment whatever Respondent. failure to a result of ers endured No. 98-70934. intimidation, was economic the land sell The court persecution. Appeals, Court of States United had petitioners therefore held Ninth Circuit.
failed to demonstrate 8, 2000 March and Submitted Argued I fol would protected ground. basis of July Filed in the petition deny low Cuevas at bar. case persecut- that Petitioner
By holding beliefs, the of her on the basis
ed ord, Amnesty Inter- copy of a which majority opinion states 1. Footnote 2 of numerous in- Report, documents national that central demonstrates that "the record assassinated the NPA has in which stances advocacy is the guerillas' of communism because of union labor activists labor-management mainstream egalitarian belief more violent, what, acquiesce in NPA’s their refusal revolutionary precisely, unsure I remain relations.” to la- it comes tactics. When To the trend. demonstrates that in the record egalitar- bor-management disputes, NPA's suggests reading contrary, of the record my ensuring that both appears limited For ianism only power itself. that the NPA seeks managers a state fear. live in workers and Rec- example, page of the Administrative