*1 court.”). case, presumably judgment same final renewable counterclaim But, noted, judicata any presented finality issues as either exists at the to avoid res voluntary compul- appellate appeal dismissal of this time an court decides the by the risk-free, it sory Alloy counterclaim. The condi- or does not. See Horwitz v. Auto. Co., (7th Cir.1992). 1431, better off than tional dismissal left Owl 957 F.2d gave up nothing point. to obtain the All cases become final at some If Hicks: Owl appeal. possibility finality immediate alone establishes finality, meaning, has no word apparent of the district court’s What § 1291 purpose. Digital serves little Cf. A district court after all acquiescence? 872, Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. S.Ct. 41(a)(2) may stipulation file a Rule of dis (“[I]f appellate immediate review only missal if it contains “terms that the every were available such time district [a proper.” require court considers But that might litigation court decision end the aas ment ensures the district court will consid matter], practical Congress’s final decision any “prejudice [non-dismissing par er one.”). aup pretty puny rule would end ty] may suffer from a dismissal without Music, prejudice.” Bridgeport Inc. v. reasons, For par- these we dismiss the Pub., Inc., Universal-MCA Music jurisdiction. ties’ appeals lack of 948, It does not finality, speak parties and indeed the point
never raised the with the district court. The district court’s views on finali ty only expressed rate matter when 54(b) determination, through a Rule may route well remain available to the CECE, Petitioner, Johana parties and the court in district this case. All but one of the other circuits to ad- dress this issue have concluded that a con- HOLDER, Jr., Attorney Eric H. § ditional dismissal does not meet 1291’s States, General of the United Third, Seventh, finality requirement. The Respondent. Eighth and Ninth Circuits treat such dis- No. 11-1989. impermissible
missals
“end-runs”
requirements
around the
1291. Fed.
Appeals,
United States
Court
Mortg. Corp.
Home Loan
v. Scottsdale
Seventh Circuit.
Co.,
(3d
Cir.2003);
Ins.
316 F.3d
Argued Oct.
2011.
Breweries, Inc.,
see also India
appears possibility to find the of finality finality. sufficient to establish See id. (“Purdy appeal runs the risk that if his unsuccessful, malpractice his case comes to
an end. We therefore hold that a condi- Purdy’s tional waiver such as creates
ROVNER, Judge. Circuit grant refuge
United States laws persecuted to those who have been in for- race, eign religion, lands because of nation- ality, membership in a political group, opinion. complexi- ty try surfaces when we to define terms group”— such as and “social perplexed the latter which has this court others, and is in the once spotlight again in this case.
I. Cece, Albania, Johana native of ar- *5 in rived the United States in and sought asylum requisite within the time immigration judge allotted. The deemed credible, Cece and therefore use her testimony immigration judge’s and the fac- findings tual aas basis to set forth the facts the case. family Korgé,
Cece lived with her in parents country Albania until her left the in 2001. in young As woman alone Albania, caught Cece the attention of a gang well-known local criminal that was forcing prostitu- notorious for women into rings. tion One the leaders of that gang, a man “Reqi,” began Cece knew as town, following her offering around her Bratton, Attorney, Wong Scott E. & As- rides, and inviting her on dates. Cece sociates, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner. is, Reqi reputation knew for his —that Jentzer, Lyle Attorney, D. Andrew C. membership gang par- in a known for its Maclaehlan, OIL, Attorney, Attorney, De- in ticipation prostitution rings, murder of Justice, DC, partment Washington, for members, gang drug and the trade. Respondent. also gang testified that the members Roth, Attorney, Charles National Immi- appeared enjoy complete immunity from Center, IL, grant Chicago, Justice long Reqi the law. Cece had seen near Amicus Curiae. school, high her where he cruised the area looking girls offering drugs and EASTERBROOK, Judge, Before Chief young women. that one of POSNER, FLAUM, MANION, Cece had heard and KANNE, ROVNER, WOOD, WILLIAMS, by Reqi these women had been kidnapped SYKES, TINDER, HAMILTON, prostitution. and forced into Reqi’s stalk- Judges. ing Circuit culminated a confrontation on June Reqi very when followed Cece into a problem serious of human trafficking store, her, pinned cosmetics cornered prostitution Albania which gangs, her to a wall. There he confronted often with protection, and at times the why go and asked her she would not out participation police, kidnap women Reqi with him. made it clear to Cece that spirit them country out of the either stopped he could not be and that he would Greece, through Kosova, or across the find her and do whatever he wanted to Italy. Adriatic Sea to Dr. Fischer de- her. him go, merely She told to let but he scribed how anomalous it single is for a tightened grip his and held her there. Albania, woman to live herself store, people There were several but such a woman would be an ideal target for no one came to her aid. Cece surmised trafficker, particularly if she had been frightened too were by Reqi. target such a past, and that Cece’s friend convinced her to report problem pervasive throughout Albania police, police per- assault to the but the and not limited to Cece’s home village of functorily accusation, dismissed her claim- Korgé. Dr. Fischer testified although ing proof. she lacked gang primarily members target women be- days A few later someone threw a rock ages tween the of sixteen twenty-six, through Cece’s window. stopped go- She many women outside of target age out, school, ing stopped going to and made range are also forced into prostitution. plans to Korgé. leave Finally, he noted that the judicial Albanian Cece moved 120 miles north to Tirana to system adequately does not enforce laws *6 sister, stay with her in who lived a univer- against Reports by traffickers. issued the sity dormitory, safety but her there was Department U.S. State in 2004 corroborat- later, year short-lived. A her sister left ed representations his large-scale of a and, country without access to the problem with human in trafficking Albania. live, dormitory family whom with (R. 573-84). again Cece was once left alone to fend for The single immigration judge herself. As a living granted woman alone in Cece Albania, asylum Cece claims she a tar- in concluding remained that she be- get no matter where she lived. longed group to the of “young women who targeted prostitution by for traffickers
In fearing safety, for her Albania,” in and that govern- the Albanian fraudulently procured an passport Italian ment was unwilling protect or unable to and came to the United States under the (R. 128-29). such women. in He noted Program. Visa Waiver year Less than a later, particular that Albania stands out Eu- applied she for and withhold- removal, ing rope major of a asserting country origin that she feared of traf- returning to Albania because she believed prostitution; fickers in government’s young that as a woman alone she judicial system is not against effective would be kidnapped join and forced to a problem; major Albania suffers from a prostitution ring. ongoing trafficking of young women by gangs; and there prospect is no Fischer,
At hearing, Ceee’s Dr. Bernd government foreseeable future of the be- Professor in Balkan History at the Indiana ing willing problem. able or to address the University-Purdue University Wayne Fort (R. 129). Albania, immigration judge The expert and an on also testified that experience Cece’s found “unfortunately testimony usu- Cece’s credible and her (R. 223). al.” Dr. Fischer described a fear reasonable. judg- panel’s opinion va- and vacated Appeals Immigration Board of
The ment. immigration the decision cated failed to however, finding that Cece
judge, II. and had success- persecution past establish (R. 330- Albania. within fully relocated appli asylum, an eligible To be 31). held that the Board Specifically, “unable or that she is cant must show determining erred judge immigration of his country to the unwilling to return” of a social a member that Cece was or a nationality persecution “because of targeted who have been young ac on fear of well-founded traffickers, noting its prostitution race, nationality, mem religion, count must have a social precedent group, or bership narrowing visibility and share U.S.C. opinion.” political being than the risk of characteristic 1101(a)(42)(A). who suc applicant An § persecuted. subject to cessfully that she was proves have a presumed to persecution is past remand, judge ex- immigration On persecution, fear of future well-founded the Board’s conclu- concern with pressed Attorney can rebut which the General protect- to a belong that Cece did sion in conditions demonstrating change safely and that she could able social country. home 8 C.F.R. applicant’s (R. 114-116, country. within the relocate Holder, 1208.13(b)(1); 119-120). immigration judge, howev- The Mustafa Cir.2013). ap by the er, that he was bound recognized fits one show that she within plicant must ap- and denied Board’s determinations there is “a categories and that of those asylum. The Board dismissed plication persecu her fear of future nexus between emphasizing appeal, second Cece’s protected of those five tion and one group was defined proposed Holder, 657 F.3d grounds.” Escobar by the harm inflicted on its large part (7th Cir.2011); Ishitiaq v. independently and did not exist members *7 Cir.2009). (7th 712, 715 578 F.3d Board also con- traffickers.1 The evidence that there was insufficient cluded question in this case primary internal relocation was record that proffered particular is whether Cece has (R. 9). not reasonable. under 8 group cognizable that social 1101(a)(42)(A). group Whether Court and over U.S.C. appealed to this Cece group under dissent, constitutes a social panel peti- denied Cece’s one Nationality Act is a review, Immigration agreeing with the Board tion for novo, review de of law that we cognizable question not named a had deference to giving suffi- while Chevron that the Board had group social forth interpretation set Board’s reasonable to conclude that Cece could cient evidence interpreting precedential opinions safely grant- Albania. We relocate within U.S.A., Chevron, Inc. v. Natural rehearing en banc statute. petition ed Cece’s withholding. group qualify for See social to appropriately abandoned its crit- 1. The Board 611, Holder, failed to demonstrate F.3d 614-15 that Cece had Gatimi v. 578 icism visibility.” the time of the Cir.2009) might Between (noting "social that homosexuals appeals, Court heterosexual, Board and second first who pass and women well analysis rejected visibility and con- a social undergone genital yet mutilation have not applicants need not show cluded that women). no different than other look recognized of a as members would
669
Council, Inc.,
837,
211,
Resources
467
I.
(1985),
U.S.
19 & N. Dec.
233-34
over-
Def.
842-43,
2778,
ruled,
104 S.Ct.
Arias v. United States.
membership
whose ideas or
(11th Cir.2006)
(same);
F.3d
practices run counter to the cultural or
Gonzales,
Cruz-Funez v.
406 F.3d
country.
convention of the
The lat-
(10th Cir.2005) (same).
ter
might
plausibly alterable,
seem
analysis
Under the deference
set but we respect an
right
individual’s
Chevron,
forth in
if congressional purpose maintain characteristics that are “funda-
clear,
Chevron,
give
we must
it effect.
mental to their individual identities.” Es-
842-43,
at
U.S.
The Board took on the task of de v. Ghorbani 585 F.3d 996 Acosta, Cir.2009) (social fining “social group” Matter group opposes that Lukwago also cul- See discriminatory Yemeni and repressive Cir.2003) (3d 157, 178 prohibit Ashcroft, that F.3d religious customs v. tural and pater- (former marriages require child soldiers who have Ugandan mixed-class INS, marriage); abduction, v. and tor nal consent enslavement escaped Safaie Cir.1994) (Iranian (8th ture). 25 F.3d rights or advocate women’s women who group social compare In order to relating Iranian customs oppose who above, must first the likes of those with INS, 12 behavior);2 v. Fatin dress and group. her social the contours of determine Cir.1993) (Iranian (3d 1233, 1241 F.3d immigration and the parties Both the gov- to conform to refuse women who inconsistent, descrip- courts were social laws and gender-specific ernment’s from one group her social varied tion of norms). inconsistencies, to the next. The iteration group of a social need Members however, claim. In re upset do not See of an swimming against the stream (BIA 1996) N. Dec. 357 Kasinga, I. & norm. Sometimes the cultural embedded (the Board, the Im- recognizing both immutable because characteristic migration and Naturalization Service im or status has past experience shared several formula- applicant “advanced labeling that knowledge or parted some group’ ‘particular tions of the Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. cannot be undone. issue”). another, both And one form that former Thus we have held at 233. judge articulat- immigration Cece and the (or, those with a generally, more truckers parameters of the relevant social ed persecutors) needed special skill group. past a social because their constitute asylum, Cece ex- application On her un acquisition of skills are actions and “perfect target” is a plains she 545-46; Escobar, F.3d at changeable, “young prostitution forced because she is attorney as do the subordinates living alone in Albania.” Orthodox woman who had information general of Colombia (R. 669). in ini- immigration judge, nation, plaguing that Se insurgents about asylum, tially granting collapsed Cece Gonzales, 770, 771-72 pulveda v. 464 F.3d definition and described her social (7th Cir.2006); former members of vio first, group consisting young “a Kenya, criminal faction in Gatimi lent and targeted prostitution women who (7th Cir.2009); Holder, 578 F.3d (R. 128) Albania,” by traffickers in tattooed, mem gang former Salvadoran consisting of then a “social God, turned to Benitez bers who had since prosti- danger being trafficked as 589 F.3d Ramos (R. 131). immigration tutes.” Thus Cir.2009); of Burmese stu parents important characteristic dissidents, Lwin, 512; judge omitted the dent lived alone.3 There is no doubt educated, cat landowning class of and the rebels, in the it should have been included targeted tle farmers Columbian Gonzales, of social immigration judge’s description Orejuela v. Tapien de *9 adjudicators parties Safaie, Occasionally or re- supra, have 3. the 2. Both Al-Ghorbani and statute, "single,” appears, in this fer to Cece as which grounds by superseded been on alone, context, living shorthand for see 1252(b)(3)(B), recognized U.S.C. as Rife Opening Appellants before the three- Brief of 606, (8th Ashcroft, Cir. 374 F.3d 614-15 Court, 22, 27, judge panel of this at 2004). (contending group of a that Cece is member Albania.”) "young, single, of testimony ly much before of the vulnerable traffickers for this rea- group, as so 120) (R. ours).4 (emphasis on a woman son.” him centered Cece’s status as length Cece testified at that living alone. rejects The Board’s order Cece’s (R. not live alone Albania women do being social as group cognizable not under 167, 195, 674), 147-148, did not she the Act it “is part because defined in large (R. 167, 173,- who lived alone anyone know by the harm inflicted on group, the 195, 207); alone, that she was to live afraid independently does not exist of the traf 674) 197, 300, (167, 171, impor- and most (R. 9). fickers.” This is not a reasoned tantly targeted that she was because she described, just we conclusion. As have the (R. 147-148, 158, living alone. See was of the of group characteristics consist the 172-73, 195, 197, 300, 305). Simi- immutable or fundamental being traits of expert’s testimony was larly, the Albanian female, young, in Albania. alone the of lived focused on risk women who if group by Even the were defined in part (R. 229-30). alone in Albania. (and the fact of we do this brief before Court noted several times be), believe it to that factor would this for- that the Board failed to consider of recognition group defeat the social un Brief group. Opening mulation of of Although der the Act. it true panel Appellants three-judge before the of proposed group only “where a is defined 20, 22, Court, at this by the persecuted, characteristic it is ” immigration surmise that the We could qualify it does not as a ‘social group,’ description group of judge’s Cece’s social Immigration Appeals Board of never has consisting “young as one of women who complete required independence any re of prostitution by Escobar, for traffickers targeted persecutor. are lationship to (R. 128) ours). Albania,” danger or (emphasis just “women F.3d And (R. 131) being prostitutes,” trafficked as because all members of a suffer describing shorthand wom- does not simply persecution, mean that char trafficking. only en vulnerable to And them. who are acteristic is one that links become A we know that women Albania Id. at 545-46. “cannot be when, targeting example, merely by vulnerable to defined the fact of persecution” protection they “solely by lack from husbands and the shared characteristic of family facing dangers members. We need not do too in retaliation for actions however, surmising, against im- alleged persecutors.” much because the took Holder, migration judge’s order on remand —and Jonaitiene v. 660 F.3d Cir.2011) (7th ours). only really (emphasis order that on this That matters however, trait, appeal specifically disqualify concludes that her shared does not — Escobar, “namely is a an valid social group. characteristics that she otherwise young minority religion (instructing woman from who 657 cannot we component most time in group’s has lived tease out one herself Albania, vulnerable, thus is to defeat particular- characteristics the definition dismissing immigration judge's opinion 4. The on re- March decision review, only appeal. one which we as the Barma v. mand is the See Cir.2011) ("Where, here, been vacated. to the BIA former has We refer only agrees supplements the IJ’s earlier decision to determine how Cece's with decision but throughout explanation has been with its articulated that decision own appeal, litigation. rejecting deci- Our review then is of im- review the IJ's migration judge's opinion supplemented second of Decem- sion as the BIA’s reason- *10 2008, 1, supplemented by ing.”). Board’s ber the 672 target- being they persecution invali- the certainly did not It group).
social suffer — united are also prostitution they which con- ed for Agbor date the — immutable character- being circum- common and by fear the who sisted of “women (3) (1) (2) Albanian, young, to their home being return istic of cised should (4) countries,” group women, fact that the For this reason living the alone. despite by persecu- the con- large part Circuit’s disagree was defined with Sixth Agbor, Gonzales, group. inflicted on Rreshpja tion v. clusion “women disqualify (or it Nor did ap- F.3d at 502. who “young those group of flouted re- (allegedly) who have in Jordan attractive Albanian young), to be pear norms, thus who face a moral pressive prostitution” into who are forced Sarhan, 658 killing.” honor high risk of group because constitute a social does not had 654, still These women F.3d fact that it circularly by it is defined gender, immutable characteristics 551, Id. 420 F.3d persecution. suffers to alter their inability nationality, and the Cir.2005).5 (6th 555-56 of non-conformist. past labels consistent conclusion is Our genital female who fear “Women found in reasoning parallel with a line who a lot like “women circumcision” sound of Immi cases. The Board mixed motive demonstrating that thus prostitution,”
fear long and this Court have gration Appeals group is that the it not fair to conclude can exist recognized harm by potential the harm or defined persecutor case in which the mixed motive language used rath merely inflicted one for more than targets an individual underlying char determining what er than does not of the reasons reason one vulner the fear and account for acteristics Act. protection under the Under warrant Board’s cases instruct ability. The doctrine, applicant an the mixed-motives whether the. look to see we must asylum long as the may qualify for so that mem “common characteristics shares or by either direct demonstrates applicant change, or either cannot bers of the persecu his evidence that circumstantial change, because required not be should motivated, part, by at least tors were are fundamental such characteristics grounds. Escobar, one of the enumerated identities.” their individual Mustafa (7th Holder, 743, Cir. 707 F.3d Gatimi, v. (citing 578 F.3d F.3d at 545 Holder, 2013).6 v. also Bueso-Avila See Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. In re Cir.2011) (“[A]n (7th 1996)). case, (BIA 663 F.3d although In this if may asylum his qualify linked individual women are it is true that these Gonzales, apply. v. law See Dawoud also addressed a and case Second Circuit has 5. The Holder, Gjura 502 Fed. In similar issue Cir.2012), (2d event, Appx. but in that case persecu- for her the "central reason" "young, of whether court skirted the issue young woman is that she was a tion could Albanian women constitute unmarried alone, qualify even as such she would group” and found instead a social ground ID as the need under the Real Act Gjura, had failed to establish applicant, ground may be a sec- only be "central.” A nexus. Id. (or etc.) justi- ondary tertiary, reason and still fy asylum provided applicant can show requires an Act of 2005 now 6. The REAL ID played than a protected more that the status protect- applicant show that one of five motivating persecutor. role in minor "central reason” grounds was at least one ed Shaikh - persecution. See 8 U.S.C. his Cir.2012). 1158(b)(l)(B)(i). Cece filed her pre-REAL ID standards claim in thus *11 Alito, have persecutors more than one mo- Circuit, Justice while on the Third long speci- tive as as one of the motives is steps described the as follows: Immigration Nationality fied in the (1) The alien identify must a group that Act.”). ‘particular constitutes a group’ social within Suppose, example, interpretation just discussed, that Muslims in a (2) country wildly are disfavored establish that he or she is a member (3) persecuted by of frequently govern- group, show that he or Muslims, -however, Wealthy ment. are to- persecuted she would be or has well- lerated because of their vast contribution founded fear persecution of based on business, poor country’s to the tax base that membership. government, and overall wealth. The on INS, (3d Fatin v. Cir. hand, beats, routinely jails
the other and 1993). that, He then went on to note “to of strips rights poor Although Muslims. the extent that the petitioner in this case grant asylum United States does not suggests that she would be persecuted or poverty, based on the fact that perse- has á well-founded fear that she would be cuted group shares this common charac- persecuted in Iran simply because she is a disqualify teristic does not group from woman, she has satisfied the first of the seeking asylum religious based on persecu- three elements that we have noted.” Id. As tion. cannot component We tease out one see, we are about to it is the nexus re group’s of a to defeat the characteristics quirement where the rubber meets the Escobar, group. definition of social 657 road. 547. Those who fear that slope leading to Both dissents submit that Cece is asylum has been made too slick broad not in the of group young Albanian women categories worry. need not impor- living alone because her expert own de tance of the “on account of’ language must fined “young” as 16 to 26 or and Cece not be overlooked. It requirement is this testified, however, is now 34. He assuage should Judge Easterbrook’s just targeted age “this is group. There fears that makes eligible asylum “[t]his many examples people of outside of the everyone who faces a substantial risk of targeted age group being kidnapped and land, harm in his native no matter (R. 255). ease, trafficked.” In this reason.” Although Post 680. the cate- part Petitioner group young gory protected persons may large, Albanian women who live alone. 'Neither the number of those who can demonstrate their age, gender, nationality, sit required likely nexus is not. As the uation are alterable. These characteristics explained Board persecution of clan-based qualify Cece’s proposed group pro as a Somalia, “the fact that all almost Somal- asylum tectable social under law. is can claim clan membership and that prevalent interclan conflict is should not
Demonstrating that an ap create plicant virtually undue concern that all belongs cognizable to a So- status, only qualify malis would step refugee the first determining asy an applicant lum. Recall that an must applicant being must show establish he is only persecuted on cognizable she fits within a account of that member- H-, ship.” but also that there is a In re 21 I. & N. nexus Dec. (BIA 1996). between the and the member The breadth of the social ship Escobar, group. the social group says nothing about requirements 542; F.3d at Ishitiaq, just 578 F.3d at for asylum, as the breadth catego- *12 674 potential for Gong[,] implications Rights of the Act [t]he Title VII Civil under
ríes
immigration to the
Chinese
United
eligible
who is
to sue
says nothing about
may
significant.... But Con-
States
be
All Afri-
an
for discrimination.
employer
immigra-
authorized the
gress has not
women,
all
exam-
and
for
can Americans
to
Chinese immi-
[control
tion services
categories
“protected”
of
ple, are members
applications
gration] by denying asylum
VII,
all
Ameri-
but not African
Title
under
decisions.
unreasoned
have a claim for discrimi-
and women
cans
(7th
530,
Gonzales,
400 F.3d
533
Iao
asylum,
to be entitled to
In order
nation.
Cir.2005). Many
groups recognized
of the
partic-
able to demonstrate
Cece must be
quite
courts are indeed
Board and
and
her mistreatment
ular link between
include: women
tribes
broad. These
group.
membership in the stated social
mutilation;
practice
genital
female
Bueso-Avila,
544;
Escobar,
F.3d at
657
365,
21 I. & N. Dec. at
Kasinga,
Matter of
requirement
This
is not
663
at 936.
F.3d
502;
Agbor,
persons
487 F.3d at
who are
persecution
about
inquiries
unique
sterilization,
involuntary
opposed to
one
group,” but rather
based on “social
1101(a)(42)(B);
Chen v.
U.S.C.
perse-
cases of
claimed
applicable
that is
(7th Cir.2010);
members
race, religion, nationality
cution based on
of the
clan and Marehan subclan in
Darood
words,
In
an
opinion.
or political
Somalia,
H-,
21 I. & N. Dec. at
In re
who has
mis-
(gypsy)
ethnic Rom
been
(1%
population of Somalia are
mayor
town
of
by the
because
treated
subclan);
members
homo-
of the Marehan
dispute
long-standing business
would
Cuba,
Toboso-Alfonso,
In re
sexuals
asylum
mayor
even if the
eligible
be
for
(BIA
1990);
I. & N.
Fili-
Dec.
undoubtedly
unfairly
mistreated
has
ancestry living
of
in the
pinos
Chinese
him,
belongs
if he
an ethnic
even
V-T-S-, 21
Philippines, Matter
I. & N.
frequently
target
group that
1997)
(BIA
(approximately
Dec.
country.
persecu-
in his
Philippines population
1.5% of
has an
pro-
be “on account of’ the
background); Singh
tion must still
identifiable Chinese
INS,
Cir.1996)
category.
tected
applicant
an
(rejecting the notion that
ineligible
asylum merely
all
because
event, the
In
breadth of cate
members
persecuted
might
of a
per
pro
been a
bar to
gory has never
se
eligible
asylum). The ethnic
Tutsis of
As we noted in Iao v. Gon
tected status.
700,000
Rawanda
close to
numbered
before
zales,
genocide
yet
Tutsi sin-
Gong
The number of followers of Falun
managed
out
gled
for murder who
to es-
to be in the tens of
is estimated
China
could
cape
surely
the United States
millions,
subject
persecu-
all of them
country.
qualify
asylum
And
[a]nyone,
sup-
....
[Because]
tion
undoubtedly any of the six million Jews
pose,
get
can
hold of
of [Falun
book
ultimately
in concentration
camps
killed
Gong] teachings,
doing
start
the exercis-
Europe could have
Nazi-controlled
made
es,
truthfully
or her-
only
declare himself
if
asylum,
they
valid claims for
had
Many
opportunity.7
asy-
adherent
to Falun
had
our
self a bona fide
might
Europe
254 of
Although
had the
to return to
where
the 937
some Jews
have
asylum
opportunity to seek
in the United
refugees
seeking
from the
were
Nazis
States, having escaped Germany on the M.S.
eventually
camps.
in concentration
killed
Louis,
entry
ultimately
were
St.
denied
Ill,
(2009).
Cong.
S.Res.
111th
ship
United States. The
was forced
into the
originated
lum laws
out of a need to ad-
applicant,
nor that
government
such
(R.
just
refugees
such
from
is interested in harming
applicant.
dress
World War
*13
330). The
asylum
proposition
II. It would
antithetical to
first
is simply
law
wrong.
complained
to
deny refuge
police,
to
to a
the
but
group
persecuted
refused to take
action. More
merely
individuals who have valid claims
importantly,
just
the standard is not
many
because too
have valid claims. See
government
whether the
of Albania
Iao,
533;
Singh,
400 F.3d at
at
F.3d
involved
the incident or
interested
reject
1359. For this reason we also
the
Cece,
harming
but also whether
it was
Sixth Circuit’s
that
reasoning
group
the
unable or unwilling
steps
to take
pre-
young-looking, attractive Albanian women
Holder,
vent the harm. Bitsin v.
719 F.3d
prostitution
who are forced into
is not a
remand,
at 628-29. On
immigration
cognizable
social
because it is too
judge acknowledged his obligation to fol-
sweeping
broad and
of a classification.
low the Board’s determination regarding
Rreshpja, 420
at
555.
the proposed
group,
social
but still noted
safeguard against potentially
innu-
finding
his
depend
Cece could not
asylum
merable
claims is
found
upon
police
protect
her from traf-
stringent
statutory requirements
for all
(R. 115-116).
fickers.
The Board had
asylum
which require
ap-
seekers
that the
nothing
say
further to
about the matter.
(1)
plicant prove
that she has suffered or
agrees
When the Board
with the decision
has a
suffering
well-founded fear of
harm
of the immigration judge, adopts that deci-
(2)
that rises to
persecution,
the level of
on
supplements
sion and
that decision with its
race, religion,
account of
nationality, mem-
here,
reasoning,
own
as it did
we review
bership
in a
group,
immigration
judge’s decision as supple
(3)
political opinion, and
is unable or un-
Holder,
mented
the Board.
Mustafa
willing to return
country
to her
because of
(7th
743,
Cir.2013)
707 F.3d
(citing
aor well-founded fear of
Holder,
267,
Jonaitiene v.
660 F.3d
persecution.
H01(a)(42)(A),
8 U.S.C.
(7th Cir.2011)); Barma,
“only we Sarhan, Jordan, at FH-T v. 658 F.3d result.” norms different compels 12-2471, do not 723 F.3d women in Iran who No. or Christian * July Cir. female dress to the Islamic wish to adhere WL 2013). conclusion Easterbrook’s Judge Yadegar-Sargis, code. public “mistreatment faced no
that Cece
is de-
the social
In other words
find-
only
to the
factual
contrary
hands” is
narrow-
one or more
by gender plus
fined
*14
event,
In
matter.
on the
ing
Although some courts
ing characteristics.
unnecessary,
is
entirety of the discussion
alone
toyed
gender
the idea that
have
with
fact
its decision on the
Board based
as the
group, we
of a social
can form the basis
group proposed social
that Cece’s
See,
today.
e.g., Per-
not decide that
need
holding
the act—a
with
under
cognizable
(9th
662,
F.3d
667
v.
611
domo
disagree.
which we
Cir.2010) (“Thus,
clearly acknowledged
deference,
level of
Circling back to our
country, re-
in
particular
that women
understanding of the
clear
now with a
membership,
ethnicity or clan
gardless of
group derived
of social
Board’s definition
particular
group”);
social
could form a
Acosta,
uphold the Board’s
from
we must
Gonzales,
513, 518
v.
Hassan
“a reasonable con-
if it is
determination
Cir.2007) (“Somali
females” constitute
statute,
it
or not
of the
whether
struction
INS, 12
group);
social
Fatin v.
particular
or even
only possible interpretation
is the
Cir.1993) (Iranian
(3d
1233, 1240
might think best.” Holder
the one a court
definition).
group
meet the social
women
—
Martinez-Gutierrez,
U.S.-,
132
296,
A-T-, 24 I. N. Dec.
In re
&
See also
(2012)
2011, 2017,
922
182 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
trait that is
(“gender is an immutable
Natural Re-
Inc. v.
(citing Chevron U.S.A.
vacated and re-
recognizable”),
generally
Council, Inc.,
837,
467 U.S.
sources Def.
A-T-,
manded,
24 I. & N. Dec.
Matter of
11,
2778,
843-844,
and n.
104 S.Ct.
3622,
617,
Decision
2008 WL
Interim
(1984));
Ven-
INS Orlando
L.Ed.2d
2008).
(BIA
22,
Although
Sept.
353,
tura,
12, 16, 123 S.Ct.
537 U.S.
agency’s own “Gender
nonbinding,
(2002).
problem
here
L.Ed.2d 272
Guidelines,”
provide Asylum Offi-
which
decision is inconsistent
the Board’s
adjudicating wom-
guidance on
cers with
in other similar cases.
with its decisions
helpful
asylum, provide
claims of
en’s
than
group is not different
Cece’s social
by
gender
is an
understanding
noting
BIA.
approved by the
many
groups
under the
qualify
immutable trait that can
not unlike the women
example,
For
she is
“particular
group.”
social
United
rubric
21 I.
Dec. at 365-
Kasinga, supra,
in
& N.
Immigra-
Citizenship
Bureau of
and
States
in a
young
were
women
tribe
66 who
Services,
Asylum
Considerations
tion
In
genital mutilation.
practices female
Asylum Claims
Adjudicating
group that
the broad immutable
both cases
Officers
(“INS
”),
Gender Guidelines
Women
young wom-
triggered
group
social
from
status —
1995,
http://www.
at:
May
available
case,
Kasinga’s
tribes
particular
en
unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b31e7.html
Albania, in
Cece’s
young
And the Office of
July
2013].
[accessed
change-
case—could be narrowed
High Commissioner
Nations
United
characteristics —liv-
able
fundamental
but
authoritative, but
Refugees (again, not
case,
having not
ing alone
Cece’s
informative)
that “women
has made clear
genital muti-
yet
subjected
been
to female
group
social
may
un-
constitute
Kasinga’s
case. Nor is Cece
lation
as,
under certain
on
185-86,
circumstances based
547 U.S.
126 S.Ct.
sex,
(2006)
common characteristic of
whether or
curium)
tion
interpret
the statutes it enforces
policy
or to make
Congress’s
as
dele-
Board also found that there
The
gate ....
picking
choosing
Such
was insufficient evidence in the record that
would condone
usurp
arbitrariness and
internal
relocation was not a feasible
agency’s
responsibilities.
means of avoiding
of which
(internal
areWe well aware of the withstanding limits of young facts that “she is a our review set forth in Gonzales v. Thom- woman minority religion from a who has EASTERBROOK, Judge, Chief of the time in Alba-
lived
most
by herself
vulnerable,
nia,
dissenting.
particularly
and thus is
rea-
traffickers
those
vulnerable to
defines,
the “social
group”
Cece
as
(R. 120).
judge
The immigration
sons.”
persecution, “young
risk of
Albanian wom-
concluded,
agree
“I
not
with the
then
do
trafficked
being
prosti-
en in
as
danger
conclusion,
required
I am
but
Board’s
stages of
proceed-
tutes.” At earlier
these
Board,
order,
had
The
its
it.” Id.
follow
proposals,
this
ings she made different
but
ability
her
to relo-
say
but
about
appellate
is the definition
briefs.
find
there is
again
cate:
“we once
Im-
My
hold that the Board of
colleagues
in-
in the record that
insufficient evidence
migration Appeals
treating
erred
(R.
is not reasonable.”8
ternal relocation
live
“young
women who
alone” as
Albanian
9).
any dis-
Board’s decision lacked
Put to one side the fact
group.
her social
Thus the
analysis of
issue.
cussion or
us to
that Cece does not ask
define social
analysis
only
we have
evidence-based
way.
Whether
judge
immigration
whose con-
danger
“young
being
Albanian
safely
could not
relo-
clusion is
prostitutes”
“young
Alba-
trafficked
cate
Tirana.
within
Nevertheless
alone”,
nian
live
women who
Cece isn’t
held that she could. The Board’s
Board
Her
expert
“young”
it.
own
defined
as 16
supported by
substantial
conclusion is
to 26 or 27. Cece is 34. The basis for her
evidence. Vahora
risk;
claim of
is future
does
she
*16
Cir.2010) (“Under
(7th
the sub-
persecution
argue
not
that she suffered
standard,
agency’s
stantial
the
evidence
Albania,
leaving
before
so the fact that she
if it
supported
determination will stand
proposed
is not a member of her own
substantial,
reasonable,
by
probative
dispositive.
(Perhaps
should be
record
evidence on the
considered as
than her
younger
age
Cece looks
whole.”).
Indeed it is not supported
mistake,
targeted
would be
but she
any
of
kind whatsoever. The
evidence
this.)
does not argue
only
in the record is that Cece
evidence
question
Then there is the
“how much
only
long
felt
in Tirana
so
as she was
safe
expert
risk is
much?” Cece’s
did not
too
quo
not
alone—a status
that ended
living
attempt
young
to
the risk that
quantify
family
as
her last
left the
soon as
member
face,
living alone
Albanian women
nor does
asylum applicant
country. An
is entitled
majority.
many
That
of
Eu-
Western
analysis
sup-
to a
of her case
reasoned
rope’s prostitutes are Albanians does not
relevant,
ported by
probative evidence.
in the
many
tell us how
are
sex trade
Mustafa,
679 Ibid. tackling subject, victims in 2011. The number When ing Board in may alone Albania is wish to consider young govern whether substantially higher. Depart- inability The State ment’s to protect people from (1, 2 ranks into four tiers is a form persecution. Equat ment nations criminals List, 3), ing inability and with Tier 1 represent- control crime with Watch unwill (a ingness Id. at Al- do ing performance. best so form of Greece, Hong in as are public bania is Tier because it reflects policy disfavoring Switzerland, than or Kong, Japan, person group) appeared and more first in a Id. at 52. Fifty-one 60 nations. decision of the Board in 1964. See Matter (1964). in 2WL or Alba- of Eusaph, nations are tiers below 10 I. & N. 454 Dec. trafficking as Deplorable repeated nia. Ibid. human The formula has many been Pierre, is, times, any given danger woman’s in Matter e.g., Albania I. & N. (1975); may be modest. Dec. Kasinga, Matter of (1996), 21 I. & N. Dec. without Whatever risk faces comes from explaining why “unable” has same ef- criminals, government, yet from “unwilling” fect quantifying what —or pub- “persecution” means mistreatment at “unable” means. appears The Board to be Gonzales, F.3d lic hands. See Hor formula, happy utility with this its but Cir.2005); Bitsin v. limited when we do not know how much (7th Cir.2013). 619, 628-31 F.3d Crime shortfall in law enforcement counts as “in- Albania, may com- rampant but it is ability” protect citizens. People mon the United States too. See, prostitution Chicago. forced into A unnecessary remand is even on the e.g., Cephus, United States v. majority’s views social-group about asy- Canada grant Must question, however. The Board found that to young prostitution lum women who fear Tirana, safely Cece could live though States, United who dread the risk perhaps parents’ city. Part III *17 pro- public-housing of violence or near majority’s opinion the declares that this jects? If reason the there were to think by not supported decision is substantial government in the Albanian cahoots with shows, As Judge evidence. Manion how- traffickers, case; a Cece would have better ever, had, gave, the Board the best of when the shows than but record no more possible all reasons: that Cece had moved enforcement, law ba- ineffective there’s no and, to Tirana was or not accosted followed INS, to persecution. Meghani sis infer Indeed, not there. Cece does even con- 843, 236 847 person tend that the her in pursued who ought can why any- Korgé I see not make learned that Tirana or she was (or else) thing today anyone turn on the facts that is to attempted Cece locate her old, years Korgé. expert 34 that the number of traffick- outside of Cece’s witness ing may victims in Albania that Tirana of en- under testified is a collection annually, out; any people things and that risk from comes claves and find than private public policy: might criminals rather led the conclude that have Board to so, BIA Chenery did not do and the Cece was at risk there after her sister left. (SEC Chenery Corp., permissive, doctrine 318 U.S. But the inference is not com- 87, (1943)) 454, 87 L.Ed. An to pulsory. agency give S.Ct. is entitled reviewing actually happened limits to agency’s weight courts more what grounds Perhaps Board than happened. decision. to what could have Cece’s consider on time in will these issues remand. untroubled Tirana “substantial are persecution criteria of used to the Board’s conclusion. See asserted
evidence”
Elias-Zacarias,
group,”
process
the “social
define
502 U.S.
INS v.
circular.)
(1992) (if
Another
cases
is a member of one
group
group” by
expands
scope
probably
of “social
that
the Board
would acknowl-
edge:
different route.
It asks whether the alien
Albanian women. But she
not
does
example,
persecution
used
be at risk. For
Escobar
contend that
she fears
because
Holder,
(7th Cir.2011),
v.
Some
ask:
cannot be identified
who was
just
C-A-,
Why
everyone
belonging
treat
N.
mistreated. Matter
23 I. &
(2006).
skip
question
to a social
Dec.
For if
persecu-
groups,
whether
occurred? The an-
tors’ acts
again
define social
then
1101(a)(42)(A)
effectively
swer is
the statute makes member-
offers
(or
race,
in a
all
ship
classification
to mistreated
whether or
persons,
race,
religion,
politics)
analysis
religion,
or some
politics,
essential
extrinsical-
(such
supposed persecution.
agency
ly defined characteristics
as tribal
person
membership)
persecution.
must decide whether a
has been
for the
account
*19
“on
persecuted
membership
again
professes
accept
account of’
in And
this
court
(or
race,
politics,
the
position though
pro-
because of
the Board’s
with the
—
etc.).
sensibly
only
You can’t
about
that it applies
persecu-
ask
cause viso
when the
deciding
without
what differentiates the
tors’ acts are
definition (opinion
the entire
671-72,
“only”
from
To
or
applicant
persons.
“solely”
know at
which uses
or
X
“merely”
times, putting
has been
on
four
persecuted
whether
account
three of the
Y,
emphasis).
of
it is
what Y
four in
al-
essential to know
is.
italics for
Thus
groups by though
“young
The Board has tried to define
the
concluded that
Board
component
also
of the
being traf-
rules but
another
danger
of
women
Albanian
See,
visibility.
flunks,
majority-
the
Board’s definition:
prostitutes”
ficked as
“danger
being
of
v.
578 F.3d
614-
e.g.,
because
Gatimi
otherwise
rules
(7th Cir.2009); majority opinion
not the sole
at 668
is
prostitutes”
as
trafficked
That is
definition.
not
allowed the Board
of the
n. 1. Other circuits have
component
ap-
have not
but
requires.
“visibility”
We
the
criterion
have
what Chevron
to use
have re-
rejected
parts
definition. We
plied the Board’s
or
different
revised
See,
group.”
it.
written
Board’s definition of “social
Mukasey, 509
e.g., Ucelo-Gomez v.
F.3d
any person
court’s approach,
Under
Cir.2007)
(2d
“visibility”
the
(approving
country
speci-
can
in his native
mistreated
changeable
adding
that
at-
standard
in circu-
then show
group”
a “social
fy
identify
as
a
tributes such wealth do
the
occurred
that
mistreatment
lar fashion
group);
Attorney
v.
Castillo-Arias
in that ad hoc
membership
because
(11th Cir.2006) (de-
General,
nize social such as groups Albanian EASTERBROOK, joins, Chief Judge, danger being trafficked as dissenting. prostitutes” “young or Albanian women live
who
alone”
treat members of that
I.
persecution.
group as victims
majority expresses
The
After
sympathy
illegally entering
the United
applicants
asylum.
using
and.
false
passport,
Cece
Yet States
Italian
Joha-
asylum.
na Cece sought
eligible
the choice whether
or lenient
To be
strict
agency,
asylum,
belongs
applicants
to the
not to the court.
must
.show
See,
183, are
e.g.,
Phinpathya,
unwilling
INS v.
464 U.S.
“unable or
return”
(1984);
country
nationality
104 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 401
of their
INS
“because of
Jong Wang,
persecution
Ha
or
fear of per-
U.S.
S.Ct.
well-founded
(1981).
race, religion,
secution on account of
L.Ed.2d
The Board
na-
tionality, membership
has chosen to make
in a
group”
“social
do real
opinion.”
effectively
group,
political
work. This court
reads it out of
8 U.S.C.
§, 1101(a)(42)(A).
the statute
agency
and directs the
to ask
only whether an alien faces a significant
asylum,
In seeking
Cece claimed she
risk for
reason.
on
This intrudes
past persecution
both had suffered
Congress
sort of choice
has
.to
committed
had a
persecu-
well-founded fear of future
Branch.
Attorney
Executive
The
Gen-
Board, however,
tion. The
concluded that
eral could direct
Board to ditch Acosta
past persecution,
Cece had not established
C-A-
as long
political
but
as the
challenge
R.
does not
them,
government
branches of
stand
appeal.
determination
Board
on
also
requires
judiciary
imple-
Chevron
concluded that Cece was
entitled
ment their choices.
asylum on
the basis of well-founded fear
One final
persecution
observation. Cece entered the
of future
had not
because Cece
fraud,
pretending
United States
to be
“established that she fears
upon
protected grounds
from nation whose
not need
citizens do
based
one
Bayo
Napolitano,
visas to visit.
R.
See
under the Act.”
330. The Board fur-
(7th Cir.2010) (en banc).
[injsufficient
The en Banc Acosta, 19 “social in Matter cogniza- group” to a fined belongs she established that of (1985), to be namely I. N. Dec. at & Opinion group,” ble social membership is “to whose groups live alone.” limited women who “young Albanian either characteristic that is immigration that the defined at And Opinion 673. to individ- determining immutable or is so fundamental erred in judge and Board identity person cognizable ual or conscience that group was not “that her social Opinion ought required change.” not be to at 677. en Opinion the Act.” under to that definition. the Board’s at 669. We have deferred further holds that Banc court INS, 144 (citing at Lwin v. safely Opinion relocate conclusion that Cece could Cir.1998)). 505, 512 supported by substan- F.3d in Albania not evidence, grants petition and tial Banc My first concern with the en agency to the review remands that the court’s formula- holding court’s is Opinion at proceedings. further 677-78. Alba- “young tion of social Cece’s satis- nian women live alone” does not who has established holding In that “Cece of or fy the Board’s definition “immutable” a cognizable to belongs that she There is “fundamental” characteristics. group,” the en Banc court Opinion nothing “living immutable about alone.” complexity of defin- length discusses at alone,” unlike an individual’s “living Nor is Opinion See at 668- ing group.” a “social married, funda- single1 choice to be or “so below, As I have several discussed identity to conscience mental individual or How- analysis. the court’s concerns with person ought required that a not ever, Banc is even if the en court correct change.” many are variations And there Albanian who “young women live type dwelling in location and of where alone,” mean- group” within the a “social live woman can choose to alone. INA, petition for ing of review sub- be denied because should nonetheless Banc I also have concerns with the en supports the Board’s stantial evidence the sub- defining court a social with present not finding that did sufficient adjective “young.” A jective shared not rea- evidence that internal relocation is “must group,” characteristic of a “social finding sonable. That alone dooms Cece’s demarcation, provide ‘permitting] clear petition accordingly should an accurate from separation members’ I deny DIS- petition review. non-members,’ Consequently, ... loose de- SENT. phrases are scriptive open-ended subjective invite interpretation describe a sufficiently particular
II.
protected
group.” Mayorga-Vidal
Group
A. Social
Cir.2012)
(1st
Holder,
9, 15
90, 94
(quoting
Ahmed
explains,
Banc' court
“Con-
As
en
(1st Cir.2010)).
directly
did
what
it
gress
address
matter,
protected
group’
“young,”
The use of
or for that
meant
be a
‘social
Act,
“old,”
Nationality
“middle-aged,”
a charac-
so
define
Immigration
too
simply
has inter-
agency
we look
see how
teristic
a social
Opinion
amorphous;
there is no clear demarcation
preted the statute.”
668-69.
rejected
"young
Opin-
alone.”
1. The en Banc court
the formulation
Albania
young
at 670
single Albania women in favor of
ion
n. 3.
*22
that her
group.
group
cognizable
this social
See
social
was not
of who fits within
(1st
105, 109
Larios v.
608 F.3d
Opinion
under the Act.”
at 677.
Cir.2010) (“There are,
example, ques
for
immigration
the
and
judge
Board
While
about,
may
who
tions
be considered
facts,
may have had all the
pertaining to
ambiguous
‘young,’
group
...
is
[this
an]
proposed
it,
Cece’s
social group, before
],
subjective,
largely
characteristic[
they did not view Cece’s
social
proposed
particu
fail
to establish sufficient level
,
group
“young
as
living
Albania woman
larity.” (quoting Mendez-Barrera
Hold
Rather,
alone.”
they
the social
(1st
viewed
er,
Cir.2010))).
-In
group
targeted
as
fact,
“young
who are
aptly
problem
this case
illustrates the
subjective
prostitution by
Albania,”
with
Cece’s
for
such a
term.
own
traffickers in
expert
the targeted group
defined
as
danger
being
“women in
trafficked as
“young
“ages
women” between the.
prostitutes.” Opinion
(citing
at 670
R.
up-until probably
about
about 26 or 131).
the
Accordingly,
immigration judge
many
get caught up
so but
minor females
and Board
propriety
never considered the
well,
children.”
473. At
this as
R.
group
court,
social
defined
just
hearing,
time of the
Cece was
two i.e., “young
Albania women
alone.”
shy
months
of 27. R. 501. And so the
specifically,
More
the immigration judge
agency’s attorney
expert
asked the
wheth-
and Board never considered whether
er traffickers would be interested
“young”
“living alone,”
and
could be char-
if
she were 27
the time she returned to
group.
acteristics of a social
And since we
responded
Albania. R. 501. The expert
authority
lack the
to
decide in
first
certainly possible.”
R. 502.
“it’s
But
instance
these
may
whether
characteristics
“a
social
does not exist as such
group,
appro-
form social
remand
is
merely
sufficiently
because words are
priate
of action.
course
See Gonzales v.
litigant
malleable to allow a
to sketch its
Thomas,
183, 186,
547 U.S.
126 S.Ct.
Ahmed,
margins.”
at 94.
Now
(2006)
curiam);
(per
L.Ed.2d 358
INS
“16, 17-up
Cece is 34. R. 105. Can
until
Ventura,
12, 16-17,
v. Orlando
537 U.S.
26,”
probably about
stretch further to 34?
(2002)
123 S.Ct.
(per
country. Albanian victims tified, time, however, of the [hu- forced labor and sex “[m]ost to of conditions man, Greece, Macedonia, trafficking] simply has to do with Italy, trafficking in “Young R. 256. about: Serbia, economics.” What Kosovo, throughout Western and men,” human strong targeted for traffick- finding reported Europe. Authorities labor; “handicapped boys,” ing for forced and trafficking victims from Greece trafficking targeted human for forced year. for during in Albania the Ukraine “strong boys,” targeted for hu- begging; were for commercial exploited Children trafficking burglary; “pretty man for sex, and forced criminal- begging, forced exploitation; targeted for sexual girls,” ity, burglary drug as and distribu- such alone,” “young living targeted and woman tion; subjected girls prosti- were also to prostitution? for arranged tution or forced labor after Alba- marriage. There is evidence that scourge trafficking human When the of subjected labor nian men forced targets popu- broad of segment such a the neigh- in and agriculture in Greece other lation, if entirety population, not the of of Al- boring Re-trafficking countries. may it well seem that what victims prob- banian victims continued to be a is an have common not immutable or lem.2 trait, fundamental but the unfortunate cir- women, being targeted any cumstance of for offen- Thus, girls, boys, men purpose. may explain why That sive subjected Albania are human traffick- that not Board concluded this was a “social ing. targeted, And others are as Cece’s group” meaning within the of the INA: testified, expert that “because the fact large part by “defined in because it is something the trafficker has their against the group, harm inflicted on and does not family.” R. But 256. “ exist of the R. independently traffickers.” ‘generalized be- lawlessness violence Gonzales, Rreshpja 9. Accord 420 F.3d populations, tween diverse the sort (6th Cir.2005); see also Esco which numerous abounds countries bar v. Cir. misery of innocent upon inflicts millions 2011) group that a (holding “cannot world, people daily generally around the solely by be defined the fact that its mem permit Attorney sufficient Gen ” from the govern bers suffer asylum.’ grant Attorney eral to Konan v. government ment or from that the (3d U.S., Gen. 432 F.3d Cir. control”). cannot will But rather 2005) INS, (quoting Singh v. 134 F.3d rejecting proposed than (9th Cir.1998)); see Ahmed v. also large it is part by because defined Ashcroft, group, the harm inflicted on the as the subjected “general Can individuals to such did, might Board better approach ized asylum lawlessness” nonetheless seek recognize problem instead that the is one out carving the immutable or funda generalized lawlessness. that mental characteristics make them words, target In However, violence? analysis, in the need final virtually because, every could Albania obtain “social questions not reach these difficult below, by identifying group” status the character if discussed even Cece identified target istics that make meaning them for human a social within the http://tirana.usembassy.gov/press-releases2/ trafficking-in-person-report-albania-june-20- 2012-press-releases/2012-trafficking-m- (last 2013). May 2012.html visited person-report albania-june-20-2012/2012- — INA, presented persecu- a case of indication that had prob- she further lems. See opposed generalized tion—as lawless- Tr. at 59-60. There is no prevail anyone still cannot on her re- indication that was looking ness —Cece Tirane, applicant the Board found nor quest pursuing because “there evidence in there. See Tr. at 35 (indicating [insufficient nothing ... relocation happened record internal is not to the applicant *24 Tirane). Thus, applicant reasonable.” R. 331. appears have successfully relocated within Alba- Internal B. Relocation 1208.13(b)(3)(f). nia. See 8 C.F.R. There is application Because Cece’s insufficient indication in is on a record that based well-founded fear of future she has well-founded fear persecution in persecution, proving addition to that she in Tirane or in another Albania, city within unwilling is unable or to return to Albania outside of Korce. applicant that, in The membership of her testified [Reqi] because “if me, wanted group, she bears the to come after- also added he’d find me anywhere.” However, proving reasonably burden of cannot See Tr. at 34. she (or there of her home is no indication that part Reqi any relocate another coun- trafficker) try Oryakhil to avoid tried or persecution. v. Mu- was motivated kasey, pursue the applicant outside of Korce. Thus, immigration applicant “The we find regulations contemplate that failed to separate proof meet her inquiries two to determine wheth- burden this case. applicant reasonably er an could relocate R. 330-331. (1) his country:
within home whether safe The sum, Board then “In concluded: (2) so, possible, is if relocation whether can not find that there is sufficient evi- it expect appli- would reasonable to dence ... that record internal relo- to safely cant Id. relocate.” cation is not reasonable.” R. 331. case, In this the Board found that Cece The that Board’s conclusion Cece failed failed to meet her burden show that to show that safe relocation was not rea- internal relocation was reasonable. by sonable was supported substantial evi- en Banc that The court holds the Board’s dence. Following encounter with conclusion is not supported substantial Reqi, successfully Cece relocated to Tirane any evidence because its decision lacked job and while there teaching obtained issue, analysis discussion or but English. It is true Cece was not merely again stated “we find that once living alone in living Tirane —she is there insufficient evidence the record dormitory room she with shared three oth- internal relocation is reasonable.” er single women. But Cece was not home- Opinion 678. But in the Board’s first work, go bound. She had to to and from remand, before already order it had ex- daily and about her affairs. Not once plained reasoning. its There was no need during year lived in Tirane was analysis Board to restate the same approached Reqi anyone she else. appeal. in the second Reqi While Cece claimed could find her Turning analysis then to the the issue anywhere, reasonably the Board could con- of internal relocation contained in the clude, did, as it that because no one had explained Board’s first order. Board Tirane, approached Cece in neither Reqi that, Tirane, after moved she nor other trafficker was motivated to [Cece] protected felt safe and and there of Korce. pursue given is no Cece outside And problems had no testimony she reasonably con- Tirane, could the Board insufficient indication “[t]here clude has a well-founded record that she
in the or in Tirane another fear of Albania, of Korce.” outside city within in Tirane she True, were alone if she (of many) profiles of fit one would But when the targeted by criminals. those by criminals is so profile targeted of those here, something broad, it is more that the individ- necessary evidence —some *25 fear that she will be ual has a well-founded case, no In her Cece offered targeted. actually target- she be evidence that would that she had a well- ed in Korce thus there. fear With- founded evidence, Board could reason- out such did not meet her ably conclude that Cece internal showing relocation burden Accordingly, reasonable. denying appli- not err in Board did petition for re- and the cation view should denied. I DISSENT. SEALCOATING, INCOR BLACKOUT PORATED, Kimberly Kolinek, Kolinek, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Paul Terry PETERSON, al., Defendants- et
Appellees. No. 12-3352. Appeals, United States Court Seventh Circuit. Argued 2013. April July Decided