*1 1078 580, 588, Shaughnessy, v. 342 72
siades
U.S.
B
512,
(1952) (emphasis
S.Ct.
(“[Tjhere strong is a societal in con interest effectively
trolling immigration polic and in
ing our borders. interest This furthered
by enhancing punishment against persons illegally having
who enter the after previously aggravated committed felonies.” MARCU, Petitioner, Miron Florin (citation omitted)). fact, plain it is § necessary piece immigra framework; tion-regulation without IMMIGRATION AND prosecution pro threat of criminal SERVICE, NATURALIZATION vides, Congress’s immigration-regulation au Respondent. fatally thority would be undermined —all No. 96-70881. bark pur bite.2 Because its “clear pose ... is to aliens deter who have been of Appeals, United States Court forced to leave the United States reen Ninth Circuit. States,”
tering the United United States v. Argued and Submitted Feb. 1998. Cooke, (E.D.Pa.1994), F.Supp. § Decided Congress’s 1326 is well within the ambit June 1998. sweeping power immigration over matters. reject
The district court correct immigration-power
Hernandez-Guerrero’s
challenge. argument gov- Asked at oral what the federal wall." Even we to assume that counsel deported should (which ernment do if not), aliens continue to being serious we trust he was soil, return American Hernandez-Guerrero's immigration power we do not believe that the suggested might counsel scope. so limited in example wish follow the Chinese and "build a *2 Schultz, Alcorn, E.. S. R. Susan Lois
John Alcorn, Laughlin, Offices of R. Law .John Beach, petitioner. Newport California, for Reyna, Immigration C. Office of Nelda Division, Department of Litigation, Civil Jus- DC, tice, respondent. Washington, for the WALLACE, TROTT, and Before: HAWKINS, Judges. Circuit WALLACE; Opinion by Judge Dissent Judge MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS. WALLACE, Judge: interrogated by police Circuit Marcu was listening beaten to Radio Free Marcu, Miron Florin a citizen of Europe wearing jeans and in made petitions Immigra- review of the Board of the United States. 1970 and in the (BIA) Appeals’ tion denial of his application 1980s, early questioned he was *3 detained asylum withholding deportation. and by police a number of times his home hear jurisdiction petition We have repeatedly. Although was searched his first 1105a(a), § pursuant deny to 8 U.S.C. and we was to emigrate wife allowed to the United petition. 1984, permission States he was denied They her. visit later divorced. petition prior was filed to the Because this Illegal Immigration effective date of the Re , applied again for a visa to Immigrant Responsibility form Act police visit the States. United Local de- 104-208,110 3009-546, Pub.L. No. Stat. him, point tained beat to the him uncon- apply provisions regarding we do not sciousness, and threatened him: “We take review. See Kalaw v. scope judicial enemy people. care of the We take 1147, 1150(9th Cir.1997). care, we shut their mouth. This means we
Mil them.”
I
After Marcu arrived in the United States
wife,
police
with his second
local
came to his
by
present
accepted
We
as
facts
questioned
Romanian
house
his mother-
BIA,
on
immigration
which were based
anticipated
in-law about his visit and his
re-
judge’s findings. Marcu was born in 1942 in
police
turn date. The
also warned her to
ato
father and a mother
Romanian
disassociate herself from Marcu because of
who was
citizen.
a United States
He asserts
ties
States.
United
citizenship
his mother’s
was
cause
deportability
has
conceded
and the
government persecution.
Romanian
only issues are
granted
whether he should be
regime
When a
took
communist
control
asylum or
deportation
have his
withheld.
government
Romanian
most of
immigration judge assigned
to the case
family’s possessions
were confiscat-
21, 1993,
a hearing
held
on December
family managed
keep
ed.
its main which time
Immigration
Marcu and the
home,
also
which
served
an office of the
(INS)
Naturalization
Service
evi-
Department
of State. This
14, 1994,
dence. On
immigration
March
office,
as the
legacy,”
known
“United States
judge
appealed
denied relief. Marcu
to the
place
remained in
until
after
BIA, which affirmed the immigration judge
“pressure
government put
Romanian
September 24, 1996,
holding that Marcu
family].”
[his
eligible
asylum
was not
because he did
not have
perse-
well-founded fear of future
government
then moved Marcu’s fami-
cution, given
governmental
the massive
room,
ly
feet,
into “a
small
10 feet
with
changes in
past
Romania in the
decade.
facilities,
water,
no
no
anything,
room.”
Marcu’s mother
detained
who,
police,
sought
her renunciation of
II
citizenship.
her U.S.
When she
to do
refused
petitions
Marcu first
for review on
so,
imprisoned.
she was
ground
that the BIA’s determination of
child,
As a
ineligibility
Marcu was taunted
other
supported
children due to his
ties
mother’s
to the Unit-
substantial evidence. Our review of the
school,
ed
high
States. When he finished
ineligibility
asy
BIA’s determination of
applied
university,
to a
his application
extremely
but
lum is
narrow. That determina
repeatedly,
ultimately
lost
and he
settled
tion must
if
upheld
“supported by
be
reason
able,
for attending
substantial,
a technical trade
probative
school. At
evidence on
school,
the trade
a teacher denounced him as
the record considered as a
whole.” U.S.C.
1105a(a)(4).
an “enemy
people.”
§
This is a highly deferential
BIA,
we need not decide whether
Like
“To reverse the
of review.
standard
government persecution or
Mareu suffered
finding we must find
the evidence
harassment,
merely
mistreat-
some
conclusion,
compels
only supports that
but
it____”
ment,
discriminatory
etc.
but not offi-
Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S.
generally
See
cial
1, 112
812,
cific information in the this, Based on he stated: petitions al review on the applicant stating is not correct in ground ternative that he should be deemed change that there has “no real been eligible solely past per based on left. Romanian Government” since he He circumstances, secution. In certain the BIA stating is also incorrect that his U.S. may reasons, grant asylum for humanitarian connections would be a basis for retribu- past persecution alone, based without the tion why him. We see no reason showing need for a of likelihood of future applicant tranquilly could reside *5 INS, persecution. See Acewicz v. 984 F.2d Romania. 1056, Cir.1993), citing 1062 Matter of (BIA Chen, 1989). 20 I. N. & Dec. analysis Director Dankert’s provides thus possibility BIA based this on the Handbook support substantial for the BIA’s determina Determining Procedures Criteria for presump tion that the had rebutted the Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention Indeed, persecution. tion of future as the and the Relating 1967 Protocol to the pointed BIA Status opinion, out in its the documen Refugees. Chen, Matter 20 I. N. tary & ways Marcu submitted in evidence some There, Dec. at 19. reference was to made report’s confirms the observation person the “a circumstances of who—or changed that the in conditions -Romania have family See, whose suffered under atrocious noticeably. e.g., International Human —has forms expected should not be Group, Cong. Law cited in 139 Rec. 1993) (“The repatriate.” Asylum may Id. be (daily 21, consid S14220 ed. Oct. Law ered in such eases when even there is little Group pleased is note the human threat future Id. rights improved situation in Romania has past year in respects.”); the several claim, regard With to this BIA Watch, Cong. Helsinki cited in 139 Rec. hand, held: on “[BJased we evidence 1993) (daily (“Although S14218 ed. Oct. do find grounds not sufficient humanitarian significant improvements there been grant respondent asylum as a matter many Hungarian areas of concern to of discretion. The actions not so severe minority in tensions have remained or asylum atrocious in nature to warrant ....”). high humanitarian reasons.” As the briefs filed this case demon- strate, dispute there is a factual regarding Although require we more than BIA, current conditions Romania. We do mere comment “all that dispute. necessary not solve this task is Our to deter- a decision out sets terms mine whether there substantial evidence to reviewing sufficient enable us aas court to support finding, not to heard, considered, BIA’s substitute see that the Board has analysis of which side in the factual dis- Rodriguez-Matamoros decided.” v. pute INS, (9th Cir.1996), we find persuasive. more As we have quoting 86 F.3d clause, ignored part 2. The dissent contends that the BIA which states that such mistreatment "can Country Report that states that "most be averted ... recourse to the nascent demo- plausible by applicants cited mistreatments are legal cratic structures rather than recourse authority now local rather gin.” national in ori- than seeking political asylum abroad.” quote theWhat dissent does next i. v. Villanueva-Franco (9th Cir.1986). majority’s description of Because opinion in its an exten- BIA forth set signifi- downplays facts omits description of harassment abuse sive life, I them events in Marcu’s recount cant during his time in Romania. Marcu endured here, they in uncontradicted were received however, judgment, In that harass- the BIA’s fashion. necessary rise to the ment and abuse did not mother, Sebatini, Florence severity to warrant or atrociousness level in the WTien born and raised United States. asylum grounds. The BIA’s on humanitarian fourteen, family Florence moved to claim, opinion heard demonstrates Darin, sister, Margaret Romania. An older evidence, and decided considered the currently in the remained Therefore, required. No more was Marcu. Margaret provided lives Florida. substan- we the BIA did not abuse hold that tial financial and emotional to Marcu holding that Marcu was discretion throughout years. Mar- and his mother solely past per- eligible based in Romania eu was born secution. dictatorship
In came to Communist IV exprop- power in Romania. family’s prop- riated most of the wealth and hold that Marcu not dem Because we family erty, except for the home Constan- the evidence onstrated that ta. compel finding that he was would asylum, hold he is not eligible for with the U.S. Florence contracted withholding deportation. to the entitled Lega- Department to establish “U.S. See Berroteran-Melendez tion,” a of the U.S. diplomatic small office *6 (9th Cir.1991). 1251, 1258 Thus, embassy, family in the home. flag displayed the American and Marcu home PETITION DENIED. diplomatic of the United bore the emblem in 1947. Marcu’s father died When States. HAWKINS, DALY Circuit MICHAEL left the American Consulate dissenting: Judge, government confiscated the home Romanian Miron Florin Marcu I must dissent. family’s remaining possessions. and the citizen, (“Marcu”), of the son a United States Marcu, mother, grandmother and his his years persecuted for over was light, a small room with no then lived loyalty of his to officials Romanian because facilities, or water. with United States. and identification detained, occasions, Florence was began the Iron Cur- On when interrogated, pressured and to renounce her and Eastern over Central tain descended April citizenship police. In by local collapse and well after U.S. Europe continued being police accused her regime Romania. the Communist imprisoned country, spy arrested and sought asylum this American Marcu WThen upside hung a trial. She was only the defense: her without presented barest engage in hours forced to Marcu his single question down it a asked Continually questioned witness, degrading acts. to contra- no witnesses sen- being spy, an American she was about corroborated testi- dict Marcu’s detailed and camps working field labor at the documentary evi- tenced to mony, introduced and it Finally, gun- prison. at Popesti Leordeni Department cover than a State dence other citizen- her point, Florence renounced U.S. four-page report. Even letter from the labor ship. was released persecution of the She conceded poor camps 1952 in health.1 persists in December in local type experienced Marcu work, mon- Although she earned forbidden of Romania. areas Affairs, Ministry of Internal a she was con- division of Release states The Certificate Regime.” Directory Security, "Manifest the crime of State the General victed ey family by secretly teaching wearing En- and kicked Marcu for U.S.-made glish jeans. and music. blue imprisonment,. During Florence’s Marcu later, years Two Marcu married Carmen pension a grandmother and his subsisted on Nicoliscu, an architect. For the next several charity a month the secret $7 years, their home was searched two to three neighbors. threw Marcu Children rocks month, police a week. At least a times once shouted, American, “Hey you, stay away police detained Marcu at the station and occasions, from us." several Marcu On was questioned listening him about to “subver- questioned taken to the office and school programs, sive” radio his contacts with neighbors them, helping about relatives, allegiance American and his to the him, grandmother his teaching what was government. interroga- Romanian These family thought what his about the Romanian typically being tions were followed Marcu government. During questionings, these threatened with death and with beaten rifle police continually 10-year-old to the referred butts. family Marcu and his as Americans. In Marcu was arrested and detained prison, After Florence’s release being instigating after accused of labor family poverty. continued live Local hours, For strikes. over 36 denied was living regularly quar- their searched repeatedly food and water and beaten. At ters, books, looking anti-government interrogation, the end of the he was forced to newspapers, Repeatedly or letters. removed write all the information' he knew about his questioned by police, from school and Marcu family. year, Later that Florence died. interrupted year education for one family. 1980-1983, work to From Marcu’s home was re- peatedly searched. was He arrested and school, Upon completing high ap- beaten “acting 1983 because he was not Hjs university. plied six-year attend good like a Communist.” and, application repeatedly was lost eventual- ly, he was denied admission. He told passport Carmen received your background, you that “[w]ith don’t ex- Margaret. travel Florida visit .to pect college.” attending to be in a While passport. arriving Upon denied in the school, three-year technical instructor ac- States, requested United Carmen and re- Marcu, class, open being cused “an political asylum. police, ceived Romanian *7 enemy During people.” these school upon learning defection, his of wife’s went to years, repeatedly ques- he was detained and and, workplace Mareu’s in front of his co- political leanings. about tioned his workers, demanded Marcu divorce her. of Most Marcu’s adult life has been filled 1985-1987, From per- the harassment and detentions, interrogations, with incidents of Initially, secution of Marcu escalated. he beatings and his based on his and fami- —all interrogated weekly by police. They ly’s support principles American free- to him threatened if he to kill tried follow In dom. Marcu and other co-workers Carmen to the pressured United States and Europe to listened Radio Free and The Voice him to divorce approxi- her. He was beaten being America at work. After turned into mately twelve times with socks filled with co-worker, police a Marcu taken to Although inquiries sand. he made discreet police and beaten. He was ac- station ways into to flee he was unable to being “enemy cused of people” Soon, escape. interroga- the detentions and “instigator.” During years, the next few daily. tions occurred almost repeatedly Marcu and Florence were arrest- ed, detained, questioned. employees Florence’s let- In two from Em the U.S. sister, Margaret, ters to her living bassy-sent through who was Marga the efforts of States, intercepted. the United were to ret —went Mareu’s house and him if asked Marcu Margaret join later learned that he wrote wished to his wife the United Florence, letters to which she never States. Local Romanian labor officials police In a received. local officer beat learned the visit in advance and threat ter, “wrong” Mary, was born in the United if he States kill Marcu said ened to April come to things. the offer to 1993. Marcu declined Romanian offi because the hearing English testified in at the Af during in the room the visit. cials were before the IJ in March 1994. He also sub- this, reuniting up hope of gave ter documentary mitted substantial evidence di United States and with Carmen excerpts supporting his claim: July her in vorced Record; reports from Am- Congressional thereafter, Daniela Marcu married Soon International, nesty Hungarian Human years, police For two contin- Safta. the next Foundation, Watch; and Helsinki their house several times each ued search newspaper Fi- various American articles.4 week. mother-in-law, nally, Marcu’s Victoria Saf- ta —who in Marcu’s house in Romania5 lives In the Communist dicta- December police a —testified that came to house torship of Nicolae Ceausescu was over- questioned few weeks after Marcu left and May 1990, Marcu was able to thrown. In plans her about Marcu’s whereabouts officer, a police the husband of bribe a local States, trip her return. Before United co-worker, through application his push plans questioned she was about her travel applied for a U.S. passport. for a He also from Marcu. and warned to dissociate herself visa. reported Victoria also several break-ins month, police called Marcu to next the house. station, had pretense on the that he into a car accident. He was taken witnessed Marcu or INS did not cross-examine beat a small room where three officers present In its own witnesses. Victoria He him until he was unconscious. with rifles fact, counsel for the INS uttered total ear, at o’clock in the his three awoke hearing.6 The words the entire part morning, an unfamiliar Constanta. was the State evidence submitted the INS bruised, if had legs as the car doors His advisory Department’s opinion and Blood was been slammed shut on them. in Romania. conditions -right running down side of his head and ear; in his urine. He there was also blood II. him for three could not find doctor to treat majority emphasizes the standard finally days. he received treatment When review, away if explain this draconian Municipal Hospital, a doctor the Constanta efforts, despite majority’s Yet result. diagnosed “post hematomegalie traumatic applied simply in which we this is not case injury.”2 multiple cranial clear, heart-wrenching, to a though facts def- visa September he received U.S. Instead, review. erential standard of Daniela. to the States with came United elevating majority ground by breaks new arrival, applied for week after One country report to talis- Department’s *8 he and asylum, which was denied.3 After shifting decision-making heights and manic visas, overstayed the visitors’ Daniela their authority from to a the BIA Cause in 'No- an Order to Show INS issued bureaucrat. conceding deportability, 1992. After vember agree majority that issue is I with the again applied asylum and with- Marcu evidence in the couple’s daugh- whether there is substantial deportation. The holding hospital 5. built this one-bedroom house 1974 produced visit at records 2. Marcu $5,000, $4,000 by Margaret. with sent him hearing before the IJ. "advocacy” of the follow- 6. The INS’s consisted asylum application and the subse- 3. first This ing Bronzina for the Gov- statements: "Isabella quent proceedings part were not record Honor”; ernment”; "No, ques- Your "I have for our review. recess”; tions, Your Honor. Can we have short Honor”; questions, ques- have no "No Your "I Honor"; "No, tions, Honor”; "No, by Your 4. All the documents offered Marcu Your Honor”; "Waived.” Your accepted the IJ as evidence. 1086 support plausible the BIA’s by applicants
record conclusion cited mistreatments successfully presump- rebutted the authority the INS are now local rather than national “[ojffieial origin,” persecution.7 tion of Deference does ... future mistreatment however, mean, might that we must rubber- occur in some localized circumstances.” stamp every petition for review of BIA’s The BIA pluck sweep- should hot be free to „Rather, asylum ing generalizations of an petition. Department denial we State- reports- conclusions, conclu- support ig- must determine whether Board’s its while “substantially noring is specific reports sion reasonable” based on statements those the record as De Valle v. petition. a whole. seeker’s (9th Cir.1990). F.2d . Románia, report The also stated that “[ojnee presented repressive major The evidence Marcu com most so of the pelling any regimes,” currently it hai’d to believe that Communist led fail well- previous reasonable factfinder could to find a who “held under office regime.” Finally, founded fear The Department effort the State ad- by the in this case its mitted exerted that Marcu’s “connections with the Department’s introduction of State re United well have led to States recurrent port. Department authorities, part State attached its interest in him on the “generalized background on particularly sheet Romanian when his first wife did not return compilation applications,” country is a of for from a visit to this in 1984.” Taken eign whole, reports, service officers’ the annual advisory opinion insufficiently Country Reports on Human Prac rebuts the regulatory presumption future tices, Refugee Report, the annual World to which entitled. n periodic country. Background on each *9 regulatory presumption eligibility 1996, of September BIA in which consisted of 208.13(b)(l)(i). asylum. § See 8 C.F.R. The cu- reports Department news and State records is- multiple mulative effect of incidents of discrimi- Thus, sued and 1992 1993. we did not nation, harassment, and violence constitute lasting change’s consider the real and democratic See v. Surita that have in occurred Romania President under (9th Cir.1996); Gaya 819-20 see also Prasad leadership. Emil Constantincscu’s (9th Cir.1996) 101 (finding 617 of past compelled applicant is when by government captors job was beaten and lost activism). political due to
1087 coun- countable civilian control over Romani- Party, present leader of the and the Iliescu, barely Intelligence reconstructed dreaded try, Service —the Sec- [Ion] speak [U]nder leader---- than former Communist Actions louder words. uritate. Ceauseseu, And, far, was the most Nicolae Romania of the Iliescu thus the actions dictatorships, all despicable government of Communist not have been satisfacto- power large very to a extent basic ry.... Intelligence and The Romanian Ser- unchanged in Romania to- structure progress vice has made limited divorce day____ revolution has [T]he Romanian itself from Dictator Ceausescu’s murder- pow- hijacked by regime now been ous Intimidation remains. Id. Securitate. They They changed (statement Atkins). their name. er. have Rep. at H8854 of n the terror changed their facade. But later, year Congress A voted extend on____ democracy. not goes Romania is MFN status Romania. The Senate stated rights. respect not Romania does human developments monitor would continue to rights respect religious Romania does light “[r]eports from a number Romania of any provide It religion. of does rights organizations suggesting] of human autonomy degree that we take of cultural ... there is still cause concern and any society. granted in civilized 138 improvement.” need for 139 tremendous (daily Cong. Sept. H8851 ed. Rec. 1993). (daily Cong. ed. Rec. S15217 Oct. 1992) (statement Lantos). of Rep. presented even more evidence. vestiges of gone, While Ceauseseu congressional representa- Statements Many system of Romania’s old do remain. rights reports organi- tives from human and today responsible party top leaders held of civil zations discussed the abuse not ea- positions under Ceauseseu and are Watch, rights, in 139 see Helsinki cited pasts; their than half ger to discuss more 21, 1993); Cong. (daily Rec. S14218 ed. Oct. police] still [secret of the old Securitate the routine torture of detainees army, police, and a new up the make International, custody, Amnesty cited see Intelli- agency known the Romanian S14219, S14220, Hungarian Cong. Rec. (statement Id. H8853 gence Service. Foundation, Rights cited in 139 Human Wolf). Rep. S14228; Cong. the lack of enforcement Rec. ... Romanian] is made [The Watch, rights, Helsinki cited of civil see recycled primarily people up who are S14218; the and Cong. Rec. intimidation regime that has from the hated Ceauseseu Intelligence Romanian surveillance dangerous ultra-na- allied itself with the International, Service,9 Amnesty cited in see tionalist, Unity Romanian National S14221, Cong. Hungarian Human Rec. Party, political arm of neo- which Foundation, Cong. cited in 139 Rec. repeatedly organization Fascist (statement S14228, Cong. Rec. H8850 Jewish, Hungarian, Romania’s attacked (statement Wolf), Lagomarsi- Rep. Rep. (state- gypsy Id. at H8854 minorities. no); independence the lack of Atkins). Rep. ment International, Amnesty cited judiciary, see Unfortunately, is not the demo- [Romania] All of these re- Cong. in 139 Rec. S14220. Hunga- neighbors like cratic success revo- ports post-dated Romania’s democratic questions re- ry Bulgaria. Serious lution. government’s today about the Iliescu main all this evidence as The BIA dismissed and economic to democratic commitment “general in Yet the evidence Marcu reforms; holding fair nature.” genuinely free and the conclusion of the elections; rights presented dwarfed improving human very advisory general liberties; Department’s promoting independent civil Kazlauskas, upheld strict, media; opinion. placing publicly ac- comprise the continued to Department’s report optimistically old Securitate The State intelligence army, agen- police, the new parliamen- new law “has established noted that a Cong. cy, including Rec. Intelligence its director. See tary oversight over Romanian [the (statement 1992) (daily Sept. hiring ed. prohibits most former H8853 Service] and *10 Wolf). However, Rep. than half of more Securitate officers.” (9th Cir.1996). Country reliance on BIA’s exclusive Re- 932-33 majority The port wrong it showed that Lithuania had com- in respects. precedent when two Our re pletely replaced leadership personnel IJ, quires the BIA and Depart State prac- ment, had discontinued of the Soviet conduct an analysis. individualized Moreover, tices of and control. See 46 Department’s surveillance F.3d the State letter Country that questions 906. We concluded Re- plausibility of some of Marcu’s port applicant demonstrated did not have challenges opinion claims and Marcu’s of the persecution political fear of because well-founded extent of in change Romania. We reports by must, however, no of conduct “[t]here had been accept testimony as the Lithuanian authorities similar to the re- because time neither the IJ nor pressive by and abusive conduct former Sovi- credibility made adverse finding. See contrast, et Id. In authorities.” record Hartooni v. Cir. 1994). replete reports before us with of continued personal opinion- And Marcu’s on -the rights human in political abuses Romania. climate Romania is not relevant to whole, claim. his As a this letter Curiously, majority tepid sup- finds the way purports analyze whether Mareu port BIA’s conclusion offered has a well-founded fear “completely report consistent” with membership Romania based on his in par “[tjhere the actual state affairs because group, family. ticular social majority his The alleged are no abuses” of Mareu after the opinion escape allows the BIA to its evalu year” “chaotic first of Romania’s democratic ative function relying cursory on the let Maj. op. strange revolution. 1081. The government ter of bureaucrat. thing during left is—Mareu Romania year.” “chaotic first He sustained a life- , BIA did engage the “individual- beating.in threatening June 1990 and left analysis” of ized situation in Mareu’s Roma- September Romania in The fact that require nia that we analyzing when changed Mareu did not stick around this “cha- country conditions. merely The Board cited year” otic beatings first see if the would Department’s report the State and noted continue not work should his claim. that Romania had "overthrown its Communist dictatorship in a democratically- favor of ignores majority piece other government general” elected “in that re- upon.which evidence relied —the Board spects civil liberties. The BIA concluded testimony of Marcu’s mother-in-law. The quoting report: “current conditions have BIA noted that Marcu’s cur- mother-in-law any so presumption altered to remove rently in Marcu’s resides house in Romania past mistreatment under Ceausescu or in Thus, tranquility. in relative the Board con- year first chaotic cluded, after overthrow will persecu- Mareu had no reason to fear lead to mistreatment in the future.” The tion his homeland. The BIA acknowl- BIA reasoned that however, persecu- because Marcu’s edged, government “Romanian tion had occurred under the Ceausescu re- expressed officials some interest as gime no longer Mareu apd any faced current [Marcu’s] whereabouts” possibility reasonable Marcu’s mother-in-law has been disturbed periods questioning by police.” “brief analysis The BIA’s does not address Mar- logical why question is obvious: are the cu’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of Constanta still inquiring into Marcu’s persecution from local authorities whom the nothing whereabouts if he has fear national is unable or unwilling to upon returning them to Romania? control. repeatedly argued, and Mareu.has The majority concludes that the State De- overwhelming submitted prove, evidence to partment’s advisory opinion “was-individual- changes that while the national level situation,” ized to satisfying fundamental, Mareu’s thus our in Romania have been requirement engage that the BIA governments unchanged. indi- are It was local analysis applicant’s vidualized circum- police primarily who family tormented his evaluating stances when changed country years. Department’s .The conditions. Osorio See simply does not presumption rebut the *11 (Chen rio, 99 at 932 doctrine allows persecution F.3d fear of Marcu has well-founded asylum past persecution severe or other local authorities. reasons). Here, Marcu and his humanitarian applicant previously held We political persecuted not ac- mother were country- required to show threat they opinion; perse- political tivism or asylum eligible for or persecution to be wide mother Ameri- cuted because Marcu’s Harpinder withholding deportation. See loyalty to can. Florence’s the United (9th Ilchert, F.3d Singh v. embassy allowing occupy the U.S. States — Cir.1995). regulatory presumption Once fly flag over her home and its her roof— only question is triggered, relevant “the being resulted in her home confiscated country in the have so conditions whether imprisonment. sto- her torture Mareu’s longer upon exists changed that the threat persecution ry examples replete with return,” “past applicant’s not whether his simply because his connections with nationwide.” experience reflected conditions political His first wife found United States. Id. asylum because was al- she considering all majority asserts that The The Roma- lowed to visit his U.S. relatives. presented would involve Marcu the evidence government effectively forced Marcu to nian resolving dispute about factual this court The United once offered divorce her. States prop- in Romania that was current conditions opportunity asylum Marcu to seek here Maj. op. BIA. 1081. This erly before the It out of fear for his life. but declined resolving disputes factual or ease is about deny particularly seems cruel to him holding It reweighing the is about evidence. opportunity now. job, apply BIA to which is its respectfully I dissent. presumptions regulatory appropriate weigh neutral fact-finder. the evidence requiring the INS mount
And it is about it seeks a minimal defense when
at least story asylum-seeker with a of dec-
deport an persecution to worst of the
ades-long regimes. Because
former Communist that he has a compelling evidence persecution if returned well-founded fear McCLATCHY; K. OF Charles ESTATE petition. grant I would K. Coblentz James William representatives, McClatchy, personal Pe III. titioners-Appellants, deny- BIA also abused discretion past per- claim ing based OF INTERNAL COMMISSIONER analysis provided secution. REVENUE, Respondent- actions were “[t]he BIA awas statement Appellee. in nature to war- severe atrocious not so or asylum for humanitarian reasons.” rant No. 97-70128. analysis any BIA to include failed Appeals, United States Court 45-year of Marcu his
why the torment Ninth Circuit. sufficiently severe atro was not mother Rodriguez-Matamoros v. See cious. Argued and Submitted Dec. Cir.1996) (court must un 26, 1998. Decided June findings BIA at the how the arrived derstand decision). underlying its
Moreover, failed to consider reason humani- independent mother be asylum. See Oso- ground granting
tarian Notes evidentiary tip decisively scales While we have described these annual Coun Mareu’s favor when a reasonable factfinder try Reports appropriate as “the most considers the evidence Marcu submitted.8 perhaps the best resource” “information Marcu overwhelming introduced documenta- foreign political nations,” Ka situations ry .evidencethat trans- Romania’s democratic zlauskas v. Cir. superficial. formation was The House of (internal 1995) quotations and omit citations Representatives deny voted to most-favored- ted), held, today, we have never until that the (“MFN”) nation trade status to Romania in Country Report particular for a or September in light rights of its civil advisory opinion Department’s abuses. during congressional Comments de- dispositive. majority’s opinion allows presented bate were varied but a common fact-finding the BIA to abdicate its function theme: by merely including pithy a few citations and n Romania represents change least quotes country reportan analy from the among all the countries Eastern and sis. - Europe Central from the hated Communist Here, adopted advisory the Board dictatorships today. what opinion’s ignoring por- conclusion while persistent pattern those There is a of human supported tions of rights involving violations all nationalities claim. The report, issued December in Romania.... The anti-Communist rev- admitted the continued hijacked existence of civil olution Romania was rights abuses authorities: “most remnants Communist Romanian. my opinion, it is clear that Marcu is 8. We entitled reviewed record as was