*1 781 site, approach activity gate at the can the track driver nor we conclude that testing re- purposes demonstrators’ Jones’ mere assertions that the construction Bachellar, 571, 397 at 90 solve. Cf. U.S. was unlawful were sufficient to create such (noting “petitioners’ S.Ct. at 1316 convictions require investigation. doubt as would further constitutionally find- have rested on a Having determined that Jones’ arrest was they lay public sat across a supported by cause, probable we conclude fully blocking sidewalk with the intent of § that his claim 42 under is U.S.C. it”). passage along Waupaca County, defeated. Schertz v. arguments The other raised (7th Cir.1989) 578, F.2d (noting that “the probable Jones in effort vitiate the probable existence of cause for arrest is an equally unavailing cause determination are absolute bar to a section 1983 claim for un- brief, and merit little discussion. In Jones arrest”). lawful our inquiry complete Thus argues activity taking that the construction and we not reach the need issue of whether place at CTA site was unlawful because liability defendants are shielded from under budding permit was invalid and because a qualified immunity. doctrine of Chicago prohibits noise control ordinance AFFIRMED. eight certain construction activities before morning. o’clock in the reason There no contentions, the merits of address these if even Jones were correct his asser probable
tions it would not alter our cause City’s disorderly
determination. The con vigilante excep
duct contains ordinance no simply
tion and there is no basis for Jones’
position that he was somehow entitled disregard dispersal Watson’s orders ANGOUCHEVA, Petitioner, Natasha gate simply
block he because was of the opinion activity taking that unauthorized IMMIGRATION AND place To site. the extent that Jones SERVICE, required NATURALIZATION believes that Watson was to investi Respondent. gate his contention the contractor lacked permit valid before Watson could arrest No. 95-2370. him, he is mistaken. This Court has consis tently police held that “once have officers Appeals, United States Court of proba discovered sufficient facts to establish Seventh Circuit. cause, they ble have constitutional obli 13, Argued May any gation investigation to conduct further hopes uncovering potentially exculpa Decided Feb. tory evidence.” Forman v. Richmond Police 1997) Dept., 104 F.3d 962-63 Cir. Stein, cases);
(collecting Kompare see Cir.1986) (“the police duty
... no constitutional inves keep
tigating they a crime once have established cause”) (internal
probable quotation marks omitted). above, explained
and citations As known facts circumstances to Watson amply supported the time of Jones’ arrest probable According cause determination.
ly, investigation further was unwarranted.
We further note that there is no evidence any that Watson record entertained
doubt toas the lawfulness of the construction
I.
A. *3 Angoucheva decided to leave May 1990 after a State Security officer sexu- ally assaulted her in the course of an inter- rogation at a State Security office. in- terrogation Angoucheva’s involved activities behalf on of the United Macedonia Mary Organization E. (argued), (“UMO-Ilinden”), Welsh for Natasha An- which was goueheva. formed in promote 1990 to rights of living Macedonians in Bulgaria. A month or Reno, Attorney General, Janet U.S. Wash- assault, two after the Angoucheva DC, ington, booked Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, I.N.S., herself IL, private on a Chicago, tour Burns, James B. the United Office of the States. Attorney, Chicago, IL, U.S. She arrived country Richard M. this July Ev- on ans, Howard, 12, 1990, J. Couvillon, William applied Donald A. and asylum for shortly Isgro, Francesco McConnell, M. David Ste- Angoucheva’s thereafter. original asylum phen Funk, W. Terri (argued), J. Lavi De- application did not detail alleged perse- partment Justice, Division, Civil Immigra- cution subject that is the of her current Litigation, DC, tion Washington, for I.N.S. claim, yet at the hearing on her ap- second Nancy plication, Kelly, Angoucheva Refugees Women Program, offered the following Cambridge & Legal Services, Somerville explanation for the discrepancy. She ex- MA, Cambridge, curiae, for amicus plained Women that she could not speak English Project Refugees of Harvard Law School. when she arrived in country, this and that sought she had assistance of a COFFEY, MANION, Before woman she had met at Immigration Of- ROVNER, Judges. Circuit fice in completing her application. The PER woman agreed CURIAM. had to complete applica- tion, but she had hurry been in a and never Angoucheva, Natasha a Bulgarian woman Angoucheva translated to what she had writ- descent, petitions Macedonian for review ten. (Apparently, the woman had taken the of a deportation final order of her denied necessary information Angoucheva’s from applications asylum for and withholding of passport.) Although Angoucheva deportation. Adopting was later the findings and con- interviewed asylum officer, Immigration clusions of the Judge the woman (“IJ”), the (the Immigration from her Appeals Board church who as a “BIA” or acted translator “Board”) during Angoucheva determined interview speak did not the same ineligible for because she had not dialect as pro- thus did not established that she persecuted had been complete vide and accurate translations. prior leaving Bulgaria or that she ultimately INS denied well-founded fear of future if re- asylum application and deportation initiated turned there. In petitioning for review proceedings. decision, Angoucheva argues that Angoucheva then legal counsel, secured fiilly did not claim, Board consider her deportability, conceded submitted re- that the evidence before the Board was application vised asylum, for detailing sufficient to past persecution establish and a first time alleged persecution well-founded fear of to which persecution. future Be- subjected she had cause we are in Bulgaria. not confident that At the the Board fully hearing considered her application, vital revised aspects the INS claim, grant we petition review, offered va- the earlier into evidence order, cate the Board’s suggested remand for fur- present her assertions proceedings. ther were fabricated. Yet the IJ credited sign a docu- him to also had forced officers discrepancies and explanation eheva’s pro-Macedonian to cease promising ment “com- was not claim current found subsequently (Administrative Record activities. fabricated.” pletely and teachers by students finding school taunted noted that (“AR”) The IJ political difficulties. her father’s concluding alike about ... tantamount “not that it is inherently persuasive is so claim other occa- various Angoucheva related (id), weight” evidentiary full entitled she or when during 1970s and 1980s sions any portion of reject specifically he did arrested, family either were members Indeed, credible. as not claim Angoueheva’s asserting their interrogated, or beaten per- claim discussing Angoucheva’s her- Angoucheva was ancestry. Macedonian credit ail of secution, the IJ seemed Security office interrogated at the State self *4 in ambiguity Despite factual assertions. the authori- 1973 when in December in Sofia here that concedes the INS findings, the IJ’s out) (correctly, it turned suspected ties claim in Angoucheva’s underlying the events hidden aunt had and her she (“No (INS one Br. at 18 fact occurred. him on account of pursuing police uncle from sexually as- [Angoucheva] was disputes interro- activities.2 pro-Macedonian his suffers from as a result saulted Angoucheva’s entire gating officer accused disorder.”).) ac-We stress post-traumatic politi- illegal in engaging family regularly describing the rele- in concession cept that Angoucheva told the When cal activities. vant events. to a Macedoni- proud was be that she officer arrested, yell- an, he threatened to B. Bulgaria!” in are Macedonians “There Petrich, Angoucheva eventually a town in forced up in grew The officer Angoucheva Bulgar- promising region sign a document “Pirin” aunt to and her the southwestern stop calling Ma- many they An- themselves Macedonians.1 home ia that is quite vocal in assert- family was cedonians. goueheva’s result, ethnicity, as a ing its Macedonian later, Angou- months Approximately five difficul- family encountered members
various street two on a Sofia cheva encountered regime, Communist Bulgaria’s ties with Security had observed who officers suppress, all attempted to generally which Angou- interrogation. When December identity. Macedonian separate of a assertions where tell the officers forced to cheva was May in occurred such-incident The first her from lived, one of remembered them forcibly seized Security officers when State her on promptly interrogation and struck family from the home. father head, eye. blackening her of the the side father, grade school It seems hips and struck her officer then The other Petrich, frequently lectured had in teacher legs. officers indicated that kicked her history using the on Macedonian his students if she contin- get of the same more she would apparently language. He also Macedonian Angoucheva herself Macedonian. ued call organization to Macedonian had aided understandably after this inci- reluctant by typing a belonged leaf- which his brother identify herself Macedonian. dent to fight for their civil urging Macedonians let these earli- Angoucheva relies on Although approx- returned home rights. he was When Bulgarian gov- point up the later, er incidents Angoucheva’s father imately six hours hostility citizens of general toward Security ernment’s severely beaten. State had been majority people in the Pirin large live these n. 1. In Urukov following history Cir.1995), provided region. we region: Bulgaria's Pirin century, when the late nineteenth In from Petrich Angoucheva to Sofia had moved began relinquishing control Turks Ottoman school. attend She in order to medical in 1971 Macedonia, territory divided into over then completed worked in studies Bulgaria, incorporated into Al- parts and four bania, hospital as a years midwife. in a Sofia for three Bulgaria, it is Serbia. In Greece and employment as a Angoucheva then secured peo- million are over that there one estimated nurse. school ple lived in A Macedonia. whose ancestors descent, Macedonian claims for Sofia’s State p.m. office 5:00 and withholding deportation of- focus April more specifically on occurring events shortly be- Angoucheva went to the State Security departure fore her from Bulgaria. In No- April office on 27 as instructed and encoun- vember Communist dictator Todor Major tered Beltehev, Michael a uniformed power, Zhivkov fell from and the new Bul- officer who first examined her passport. garian government espoused its interest in Beltehev then left in alone ensuring rights human all Bulgarians. It office for approximately twenty minutes be- was in this environment that the UMO-Uin- fore returning with two officers who merely Petrieh, den founded at Angoucheva looked for moment before joined quickly organization hope leaving. began Beltehev question that the new persuaded be cheva about the March 11 gathering, and he recognize Macedonians as a distinct ethnic indicated that gatherings with a or- group whose culture should not sup- ientation permitted were not private pressed. Angoucheva learned, soon howev- homes. He explained that Macedonians do er, general anti-Macedonian senti- not exist in Bulgaria, organizations like ment disappeared with illegal, UMO-Ilinden are and that they change government. unity threaten the and stability of the coun- *5 11,1990, On March Angoucheva participat- try. Beltehev accused UMO-Ilinden mem- pro-Macedonian ed in a rally public at a park bers being “separatists” and “traitors.” rally’s Sofia. The purpose protest was to Beltehev also was aware Angoucheva that government’s the recognize refusal to the had participáted in the April rally, Sandanski separate ethnic identity rights and of Mace- questioned and he her about rally as Angoucheva donians. and protest- her fellow well, warning government her the would jeered by ers were gathering the crowd and squelch act to anti-Bulgarian such activities eventually were surrounded State Securi- in the future. leaving After the to room take ty Afterward, officers. Angoucheva hosted a call, telephone explained Beltehev that be- gathering at her apartment Sofia for at least her, fore he could release Angoucheva would ten others who had come from Petrieh to be required sign to a notice promising that participate rally. the group The sang she pro-Macedonian would her cease activi- Macedonian songs and listened to Macedoni- ties and that she no longer would communi- an music. cate activists, with Macedonian call herself month, The following spon- Macedonian, UMO-Ilinden or criticize Bulgarian the gov- rally sored a at Rozen Monastery in Sandan- ernment. signed notice, the and ski to commemorate anniversary the of the put Beltehev it in her folder. Sandanski, death of Yane a Macedonian hero Beltehev began then to Angouche- stare at who had led an uprising unsuccessful against va speaking, without making quite her ner- early Turks in the got 1900s. When it vous. eventually He lit and ciga- smoked a wind rally, of the rette, watching Angoucheva all the while. suspended public transportation into Sandan- Beltehev then asked personal ski and sent Security State pre- officers to questions situation, about family her and she vent those already there from assembling. told him of her 1989 son, divorce and of her Although the UMO-Ilinden’s chairman was who lived parents with her in Petrieh. It warned that rally illegal, was proceed- it was by point approximately p.m., 7:00 ed as planned. following day, Sofia’s and Beltehev walked into the deserted corri- newspaper state-owned rally denounced the dor, door, locked the front and turned off the anti-Bulgarian as and reiterated that such fights. office, He returned to the turned off gatherings illegal. were too, the fights there and closed the door In meantime, a neighbor reported him, had smiling. behind Beltehev then touched Angoucheva to Security “ques- Angoucheva’s hair, and began she to shake. gathering tionable” home her after coat, the Taking off his Angouche- Beltehev told rally. March 11 She was ordered to appear va that she was grabbed beautiful. He her moving from the that she was and order Angoueheva be- her. kissed and shoulders rape stage of reorganization to the denial not to do Beltchev begged cry and to gan what related Kon also syndrome. trauma Angouche- told officer her. to anything and of the assault told her had him, Angoueheva not he would to good if she va that and recollections recurrent Affairs, described to Internal her folder report An- nightmares, flashbacks, as well Angouche- As Security office. regional State indicated Kon experiences. still sob, goucheva un- Beltchev to shake va continued smoke, re- which cigarette the smell hand on that placed her blouse buttoned Beltchev, Major can Angoueheva all minds heavily on her cheek breast, breathing Angoueheva will flashback, skirt, attempt- cause at her tugged He the while. in her numbness same experience the panty- then underwear pull down in the experienced that she and feet hands interrupted point at this Beltchev hose. Angoueheva following days the assault. hush- telephone. After ringing of his by the that oc- incident particular to Kon sobs, related Beltchev answered ing Angoucheva’s country— in this shopping mall at a curred on a serious quickly took His voice the call. who in the mall saw a man Angoueheva he the caller that tone, indicated and he Beltchev, fled from Major and she Hanging up, away. resembled right ready would be disoriented, mall, became nauseous was free that she Angoueheva told Beltchev parking find car was unable keep about silent he warned go, nearly “it would Kon testified lot. Angoueheva believed done. he had what symp- fake the someone] impossible [for if did not. harm her Beltchev described, in has [Angoueheva] which toms left the State Angoueheva time By the describe seems to manner which dark, wan- office, and she it (AR them, and detail.” with emotion returning finally before streets dered Sofia’s which trauma from severity Given sleep night, and She home. *6 suffers, it opined that Kon Angoueheva still Pet- traveled to morning, she following to “extraordinarily detrimental” Although parents and son. her rich to visit place Bulgaria—the to return her force .to days, Angouche- a few stayed in Petrieh she also ob- Kon occurred. where the assault rape. attempted anyone of the not tell va did returning to Angoucheva’s fear served Sofia, Angoueheva feared returning to Upon emphasized genuine, she Bulgaria and to safety; afraid she was physical for her flee Bul- compelled to Angoueheva had felt door, knocking her and she at respond to place come to a to garia after the assault and being followed. She that she believed friends, leaving family or she had no where problems physical experienced such son behind. parents adolescent and her feet, high hands and numbness ad- offered evidence Angoueheva also point, At one pressure. blood Bulgaria since doctor, dressed conditions who found neighbors summoned family, Angouehe- to her departure. As own symp- attributed her and. physical problem in- Security that State officers testified Angoueheva ulti- va stress. toms to emotional where- about her of her aunt Sofia Bulgar- quired leave she mately decided any aunt retain directed arrangements private for abouts ia, made Angoueheva. from -might receive After letters ten-day the United States. tour to telephone calls to that her also indicated country applying for She arriving in this some- family are monitored attorneys only her members Angoueheva told asylum, by the interrupted authorities. even the sexual times worker of clinical and a social assault. generally, Bulgaria for As conditions im- they not Kon, asserted that worker, Angoueheva testified Heidi social That of the not members for proved, two- least hearing She told three below. has never organization That had conducted UMO-Ilinden. counseling sessions she hour govern- recognized been and of the conclusions Angoueheva, with illegal, a has declared and in fact Angoueheva ment grew out of those sessions—that An- by Bulgaria’s courts. upheld dis- decision suffering post-traumatic stress from goucheva newspaper submitted articles re- had not shown that members of her family vealing organization’s leaders are who remained in Bulgaria had encountered being investigated on criminal charges that significant problems since departure. could result imprisonment (AR terms of three 58-59.) years. to five presented She also affidavits found, moreover, IJ Angoucheva from residents of and visitors had not established a well-founded fear of which indicate that conditions for Macedoni- persecution if she were returned Bulgaria. ans and Ilinden members have improved. only He offered the following explanation for The 1993 report annual Rights Human that finding: Watch, parent group Watch, of HelsinM Although it true observed that that an gathered Ilinden members who for asylum who commemorate the asserts a death of well-founded Sandanski in fear of April (AR future 1993 were required is not police. beaten state to dem- 377.) Angoucheva onstrate that presented she would be singled evidence of out for eyewitness accounts to mistreatment that event. where she Helsinki establishes her in, Watch’s report observed, inclusion moreover, with, and identification a simi- larly members of the group upon UMO-Ilinden situated and of which there has other organizations Ilinden pattern been a experi- practice “have of persecution, enced rights violations, numerous human in- evidence here does not support cluding petition proposition restrictions on gathering, in- that all Macedonians have a ability to congress, hold a confiscation of well-founded fear of future persecution, passports, their rather, intimidation likely more those whose (the (AR 328.) police).” secret activities were more visible or active than Respondent. C. (AR 60.) Because the IJ found After considering evidence, the above ineligible asylum, necessarily he denied found ineligible withholding deporta- because she had not established either did, tion. however, The IJ grant Angou- persecution or a well-founded fear future request cheva’s voluntary departure. persecution. Although the IJ found Angoucheva appealed to BIA, which af- eheva’s experiences account of her in Bulgar- firmed the “comprehensive M’s and well- ia to be consistent with government’s reasoned decision” for the reasons set forth *7 policy of forced assimilation of Macedoni- (AR 2.) therein. minority, an he did not find her evidence sufficient to past persecution. establish II. offered five “observations” in support of (1) that conclusion: Angoucheva had been A. to able obtain a graduate level education and employment to secure midwife; full-time aas This case concerns the now-familiar (2) on the two occasions when procedures by deportable a which alien cur been interrogated rently offi- in the may United States attempt to (in cers 1990), 1973 April December she pointing remain here to the persecution (3) had been charge; released without formal already experienced she in her homeland or although Angoucheva had been “threatened which she See, fears if returned there. e.g., Cir.1995); with violent aggression during INS, April, Sanon v. (7th 648, 52 F.3d 650 interrogation, 1990 INS, ajal-Munoz unwarranted actions v. 743 F.2d Carv interrogator of her 562, Cir.1984). [did] pat- a establish 564 route, The first practice or tern of inspired or by Angoucheva here, the one followed is to (4) persecution;” condoned Angoucheva had apply asylum pursuant to 8 U.S.C. been able 1158(a). a passport obtain § and to leave That relief is at available 1990, July as well Attorney as travel General’s discretion if or her she country outside the with her husband in designee qualifies concludes the alien as 1982, 1983, 1987; (5) “refugee” meaning within the of 8 U.S.C. 788 its showing, if we will not reverse 1101(a)(42)(A). qualifies make that An individual
§ “so applicant’s to her is unwilling to return” unless the evidence or decision “is unable she persecution or a origin “because of factfinder country compelling no reasonable of on of account persecution requisite perse- fear find of fail to fear well-founded race, nationality, membership Elias-Zacarias, 483-84, in a religion, 502 at of U.S. cution.” political opinion.” or group, particular social 112 at 817. S.Ct. considered will therefore be Id. An alien route, procedural with The second persecution in the refugee if has suffered she statutory deportation, is difficult to holding of the more one past on account objectively grant if can show than first. Whereas a grounds or establish persecution applicant in the if asylum discretionary of such even reasonable fear is generally INS v. Cardoza- withholding future. of de qualifies “refugee,” See as a 427-28, Fonseca, 421, 107 S.Ct. Attorney 480 U.S. mandatory portation is once “the (1987); 1207, 1211, L.Ed.2d 434 see 94 life or [the] General determines that alien’s Sanon, at. 651. If the alien estab F.3d 52 native] in [her freedom would be threatened moreover, a rebutta- persecution, race, lishes national country religion, on account of granting presumption favor ble arises ity, membership group, particular in a social INS, 716, F.3d 722 asylum. Draganova v. 82 1253(h)(1); opinion.” § 8 U.S.C. INS, 364, Cir.1996); F.2d Skalak 944 Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 at 443- see also U.S. INS, (7th Cir.1991); Osaghae v. F.2d 942 365 44, at 1219-20. of the 107 S.Ct. Because (7th Cir.1991). 1160, 1163 presump Yet that relief, mandatory applicant nature of suggest may tion overcome evidence be establishing than in bears a heavier burden the alien’s home coun that conditions eligibility asylum—she must show an extent try changed such probability” persecution, which “dear danger persecution longer there. is likely that “it more than not that means Skalak, 722; F.3d F.2d Draganova, 82 at 944 subject be on one [she] would 208.16(b)(2). 365; § 8 C.F.R. see also Stevic, grounds.” 467 specified of the INS v. 2501, 407, 429-30, 2489, 81 U.S. 104 S.Ct. determination review Board’s We (1984); Sanon, see also L.Ed.2d evi refugee status under the substantial satisfy An alien who fails test, uphold requires dence which us then, asylum, necessarily requirements for “supported by if Board’s conclusion it is rea stringent proba to meet more “clear fails substantial, sonable, probative evidence withholding bility” required standard on the record a whole.” 8 U.S.C. INS, 835, E.g., deportation. Man v. 69 F.3d 1105a(a)(4); § see also INS v. Elias-Zacari (7th Cir.1995); Milosevic as, 812, 502 U.S. 112 S.Ct. (7th Cir.1994).3 366, 372 (1992). Although Supreme L.Ed.2d Court has held that an likely need not “that it more than not show B. that he persecuted or she will his or *8 initially argues that the (Cardoza-Fonseca, country”
home
480 U.S.
right
by
process
Board violated her
449,
due
1222),
require
our
107 S.Ct.
eases
ignoring
of
prior
half
her claim—that
to flee
applicant
present “specific
the
facts estab
Bulgaria,
singled
perse
ing
she was
out for
lishing
actually
that he or
has
the
she
been
political opinion.
on
of her
persecution
cution
account
good
victim of
has some
or
other
lan
argument
imprecise
Her
stems from the
singled
reason
fear that
will
he or she
ap
in
Carvajal-Munoz,
guage
dismissing
for
the Board used
persecution-”
out
peal. Although
original);
743
574
in
it affirmed for the reasons
(emphasis
F.2d at
see
decision,
Draganova,
also
82
If
set forth in
IJ’s
the Board
F.3d at 720-21.
the
the
specifically
“adequately
Board determines that the
failed to
noted that the IJ had
withholding
request
deportation
3.
revised
submitted her
also as
for
1253(h).
asylum
deporta-
§
for
C.F.R.
after the
had instituted
under 8 U.S.C.
See 8
INS
Stevic,
18,
208.3(b);
proceedings against
§
tion
In
see
789
correctly
[Angoueheva] persecution.
that
Angoueheva argues
determined
that
the
conclusions, however,
proof in
came to these
only
met her
establish
af-
had not
burden
mischaracterizing
ter
the
ing
persecution
fear of
nature of her
a well-founded
on
claim.
throughout
statutorily
opinion
The IJ focused
-protected
of a
on
account
reason.”
(AR 2.)
Angoueheva’s
ethnicity,
Macedonian
Angoueheva
par-
to mean that
takes this
ticularly
heritage
on whether that
the Board failed even
consider
distinct
subject
government-sponsored
her to
past persecution,
is not
claim of
which
men
(See
58-60.)
persecution.
52,
AR
Indeed, in
said, however,
its
As
tioned in
order.
we
the
rejecting Angoueheva’s assertion of a well-
actually adopted
“comprehen
Board
the IJ’s
persecution,
founded fear of future
(id.),
the IJ
sive
well-reasoned decision”
in
concluded that the
support
evidence did not
circumstance,
reasoning
it is the IJ’s
proposition
that all million
1.5
Macedoni-
of our
becomes the focus
review. See
ans in
had such a well-founded
INS,
fear.
v.
77
Guentchev
F.3d
1038
(AR
Although Angoueheva testified
Cir.1996);
INS,
1167, 1170
Cuevas v.
generally about the
harassment
her fam-
Urukov,
Cir.1995);
see also
F.3d at
ily
regularly
members have
endured as out-
plainly
rejected
The IJ
considered
Macedonians,
spoken
asylum
claim to
argument
Angoueheva
eligible
does not rest on her
heritage
Macedonian
already
due
alone, but on her
in
membership
the UMO-
only
in Bulgaria.
interpret
We can
endured
Ilinden,
organization
that has been de-
adopting
por
the Board’s order
illegal
“separatist”
clared
as a result of its
addressing
tion
IJ’s decision
joining
views. After
the UMO-Ilinden in the
Guentchev,
claim.
C. case, opinion gives and in this the IJ’s that Angoueheva Angoucheva’s IJ found had that indication he considered presented not claim in membership evidence sufficient establish based on her the UMO- See, that of persecution e.g., Hengan, she was a victim or Ilinden. 79 F.3d at (remanding had a of opinion well-founded fear future where IJ’s did not re- the assault desire hide apparent contentions, from his observ- applicant’s the spond itOr could officials. government from other respond to the must “[a]gencies ing that inextricably linked to was the assault be that and decisions them avoid made arguments disapproval of government’s the irrelevancies.”); Salameda on based of the on behalf Cir.1995) Angoucheva’s activities (finding that 447, 451 it UMO-Ilinden. did not stand where cannot order Board’s the issues manner in a rational address Board, special its with are issues These consideration); for tendered had aliens nature of complex in the expertise (remanding where Sanon, at F.3d 652-53 foreign activity in coun- governmental and issues adequately address Board failed should be tries, The decision decide. must support of his by the tendered not left to this court is fully explained so that INS, Shahandeh-Pey v. claim); by Angoucheva raised speculate about issues Cir.1987) (“A decision 1384, have should considered. that the Board minimal reflect, even some not that does aspects of important of level, consideration III. made, for all a is one claim an individual’s reasons, foregoing we For the GRANT know, rational “without can reviewing court review, or- Board’s petition Vaoate ”). explanation.’ proceedings at further der, Remand make thor- remand, must the Board Angou- fully consider On Board should which the First, issues. least two findings on on her ough asylum- based arguments for cheva’s targeted for singled out and Ilinden activities. persecution not sim- possible harassment ROVNER, Macedonian, be- Circuit but DIAMOND ILANA ply because concurring. of the UMO-Ilin- Judge, a member cause she of examination discussion den? More vacating Board’s join the court I experience of and the group particular remanding further deportation order and help- members other persecution asylum appli- Angoueheva’s consideration mem- her active determining whether ful not convinced I too am cation. per- legitimate fear cause bership would relied circumstances on particular facts and secution. asylum appli- support her Angoucheva to considered the IJ adequately cation clarify its exami- were Second, should the Board addressing persecution In by Major or the Board. Belt- assault sexual nation of effectively any claims, drained force the IJ rape led to forcible- have chev by focusing arguments telephone from interrupted by a been he not ethnicity while all only on her Macedonian did mention that not Board’s order call. The on behalf ignoring her single but activities it in a incident, dismissed response chilling those and the UMO-Ilinden that Beltchev’s conduct sentence, concluding That is evidenced prompted. practice activities pattern “establish did not that An- observation particular the IJ’s persecu- or condoned inspired 1.5 all mil- failed to establish that goucheva defending (AR.59.) that decision In tion.” Bulgaria have a well- may lion Macedonians assault suggests here, INS (AR persecution. motivated, may fear of future founded politically but not particularly star- conclusion is The IJ’s Belt- from the fact that simply have resulted said, unfairly the I it tling, dilutes sexually attractive. chev found claim of however, particular to us insen- seems suggestion, That points As the court here. cheva advances violent motivations the more sitive to primarily out, claim rests may have The Service considered. could be on behalf membership in and activities abusing Major was that the suggest meant to UMO-Ilinden, not on her Macedoni- edification, personal rather power discussion of Yet the IJ’s heritage alone. an officially act condoned carrying out than activities, assault that of the sexual those interpre- Bulgarian government. That of the I them, cryptic that cannot so grew out could be derived conduct tation of Beltchev’s *10 be confident that Angoucheva’s 1987, the heart of and that she had no difficulty seriously claim was ever considered. And as obtaining a passport and leaving the country we reaffirm today, the Board an has obli Angoucheva’s in 1990. earlier travels strike gation to consider the individualized circum similarly me as irrelevant to her current by stances offered support merely claim—she accompanied her husband (See 789-90.) ante asylum. her claim for when he traveled outside the country as a professional musician, any event, and in My concerns about the lack IJ’s of atten- trips pre-date those her activities on behalf truly tion to troubling aspects Angou- of the UMO-Ilinden in Moreover, cheva’s are not mollified that Angoueheva fact was able to leave Bul- fact that at least three of the five “observa- garia in only 1990 not fails to refute her tions” he in rejecting made persecu- claim, it actually supports it. I would not (See largely tion claim are ante irrelevant. expect that a squelch- intent on first despite IJ noted that ing a growing movement for Macedonian harassment from her teachers other stu- rights object when one of the activists dents, Angoueheva had been able to obtain a pack decided to up and leave. id. See graduate level education and to secure full- employment (AE 58.) time as a midwife. The fifth of the IJ’s observations could be As we remarked about a similar “observa- relevant Angoucheva’s claim of past and INS, Hengan in tion” 79 F.3d persecution, future but it too reflects a refus- Cir.1996), however, enough, “true but irrele- to grapple al with Angoucheva’s particular- applicant’s] [the vant contention.” The ized circumstances. The IJ indicated that here, finding IJ’s like the finding similar Angoucheva’s members of family who Hengan, does not particular address the cir- remain in Bulgaria have not sig- encountered Angoueheva’s. cumstances of problems nificant since departure claim, as it only generally addresses Angoucheva’s If claim were based plight Bulgaria’s population Macedonian only on her Macedonian ethnicity, that would under regime Communist of Todor highly fact, be a relevant family for the Zhivkov. education and em- members left behind would similarly situ- ployment history largely seem to me irrele- applicant. ated to the Yet there is no evi- specific vant to the claim that perse- she was dence in this record suggest cuted 1990 after becoming politieally- family members who remained are members active member of the UMO-Ilinden. who, of the UMO-Ilinden Angoueheva, like already singled out govern- The IJ’s second observation—that Moreover, ment authorities. the IJ makes interrogated cheva both in December no mention of the fact that Angouche- after April formally 1990 but was not departure, va’s Security ques- officers charged on either does not occasion—also tioned her aunt whereabouts, about her di- particularly probative. seem Although An- the aunt any rected to retain letters she goucheva formally charged was not any with might receive, may monitoring even be pertinent offense after the interrogation in family’s telephone calls. Those facts she sexually assaulted the inter- support would seem to Angoucheva’s claim officer, rogating who indicated that he would similarly that she is not situated to the fami- report her to Internal Affairs if “she was remain, ly members who but that she is of good to him.” essentially found, then, greater interest to the govern- Angoueheva persecuted was not because ment because of her UMO-Ilinden activities. the State her, officer did not arrest I believe that the IJ and the Board should merely he rape (criticiz- tried to her! See id. have addressed this evidence its effect ing similar finding as irrelevant—“the Ceau- claim. See Sanon regime sescu did not Hengan, arrest Cir.1995) (criticizing police 1991 the weekly”). harassed her finding Board’s nothing happened has Finally, the IJ Angoueheva noted that the alien’s family in his country native when able to 1982, 1983, travel outside the evidence showed the alien has been *11 792 Security officer by a State sexually assaulted family be- members speak with to
unable
opin-
ethnicity
political
and
of her
because
they spoke to
if
retribution
they feared
cause
that
the officer
ions,
to the fact
opposed
as
him).
sexually at-
have found her
may personally
“observations”
his five
of
third
Only in the
(See
13,
(citing
20
18 &
Br. at
INS
tractive.
actu-
addressing the
to
close
come
the IJ
did
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
483-84,
478,
INS
claim:
of
al substance
816-17,
812,
38
117 L.Ed.2d
112 S.Ct.
[Angoueheva]
that
appears
Although it
mind,
(1992)).)2
had in
what the IJ
If that is
intimidation,
threat-
of
the victim
was
my colleagues
certainly agree with
I
then
during her
aggression
violent
ened with
required
explanation is
detailed
a more
that
unwarranted
interrogation,
the
April, 1990
offered
Angoueheva
evidence
light of the
do not establish
interrogator
of her
actions
address,
to
expect the Board
I
here.
would
in-
government
of
practice
pattern or
a
separate
possible to
it is
example,
how
persecution.
or condoned
spired
interrogation
Security
occa-
official State
the
interpret
59.)
possible
(AR
Although it is
activism
political
by Angoucheva’s
sioned
ap-
ways, the IJ
government
of two
one
the
finding in
assault
this
the sexual
from
that the
I
immediately
INS’ view
followed it.
adopted the
interrogator
that
pears to have
consider,
nothing
personal
a
in other
Board to
rape
expect
was
the
attempted
argument
that
Beltchev,
words,
seemingly
an official
and not
sensible
the
Major
of
act
pro-
these
politi-
throughout
made
response
Angoueheva
has
government
was inex-
the sexual assault
ceedings—that
inter-
presses that
The INS
opinions.1
cal
Bulgarian government’s
the
tricably linked to
record does
here,
that the
arguing
pretation
that
Ilinden activities
disapproval of her
Angoueheva
finding
compel
not
however,
power
and desire to harm
mean,
over
perpetrator’s
that the
finding
could
The
Powers,
See, e.g.,
United States
only
being
as an isolat-
victim.
viewed
sexual assault
authorities),
Cir.1995)
(collecting
incident,
to estab-
1465-66
insufficient
and that it was
ed
-
-,
denied,
U.S.
116 S.Ct.
persecution. Yet the
practice of
rt.
pattern or
lish a
ce
(1996);
appli-
suggest
States v. Ham
that if an
United
regulations
L.Ed.2d 734
applicable
(one
mond,
(C.M.A.1984)
singled out for
of
already
220 n. 3
has been
17 M.J.
cant
"pattern
rape
or
origin,
misconceptions
a
country of
then
about
is that
“common
in her
required.
showing
C.F.R.
is
practice”
not
than a crime of vio
act rather
a sexual
it is
lence.”);
208.16(b)(3).
208.13(b)(2)(i)(A)&
High
§§
Nations
Commissioner
United
("UNHCR”),
Against
Refugees
Violence
Sexual
and Re
Refugees:
on Prevention
Guidelines
According
1995)
(Geneva
("Perpetrators of
sponse, at 1
establish
[tjhere
compelling evidence to
is
by a desire
violence are often motivated
sexual
because
Major
the Petitioner
harmed
these
power and
Given
motivat
domination.
ethnicity. Nor is
opinion or
political
of her
forces,
in situations
rape is common
to show that the
compelling evidence
there
Like
internal strife....
other
conflict and
armed
promoted
or condoned
hurt,
torture,
control
it is often meant
forms
Rather,
supports
the evidence
Major's act.
humiliate, violating
person's
innermost
Major
Petition-
found
the inference
integrity.”).
I was therefore
physical
mental
sexually attractive.
er
surprised
of the United
that a division
somewhat
(Id.
788.)
also does
find it
Service
not
take a
Department of Justice would
differ
States
occurred
important
the assault
particularly
merely
Perhaps
the INS
meant
view.
ent
interrogation:
an official
in the course
sup
case would
suggest that
record
Major sexually as-
fact that
Nor does the
Major
person
Beltchev
port the conclusion
same time that
at the
Petitioner
saulted the
power vested
him as
officer
ally
abused
interrogated
activi-
being
for her
was
ties,
Bulgarian gov
and that the
the Secret Police
assault
compel[]
that the
the conclusion
sponsored
his ac
condoned
neither
nor
ernment
Major may
politically
motivated.
See,
Kasinga,
e.g.,
Interim Decision
In re
reasons,
tions.
for other
Petitioner
have assaulted
13, 1996) (Board
(BIA
recognizes June
found
including
example the fact that
he
infliction
harm
"persecution
consist
can
her attractive.
gov
by government,
persons a
suffering
or
(Id. at
control”).
unwilling
or unable
ernment
by the
Angoueheva,
taken aback
I was
Like
position
slightly
than
more defensible
That
like this
argument
a sexual
one
assault
power
authority
Beltchev
suggesting that the
Rape
alone.
to sexual attraction
be attributed
Angoueheva
officer
as a State
over
to-
held
generally understood
are
assault
sexual
attraction,
to assault her
nothing
with his decision
to do
but as
day
sexual acts borne
that,
sexually.
aggression
stem from
acts of violent
*12
it would not and could not have occurred but
stamped
Persecution is
on every page of
for those activities.
this
[Lazo-Majano]
record.
has been sin-
gled
bullied, beaten,
out to be
injured,
Finally, this
not
does
strike me as a ease
raped, and enslaved....
The persecution
INS,
like Klawitter v.
terim where proving by Haitian and beaten gang-raped
had been supporter she was who believed
soldiers Aristide). President deposed *13 treat that a reasoned end, I believe
In the application,
ment of assault sexual on the reliance
particularly of an course Security officer
by a State activ about interrogation
official than the dis something more
ities, requires given it “observation” single-sentence missive See, e.g., here. Board and the INS, 63; Bastanipour v. F.3d at
Hengan, 79 Cir.1992). I for one 1129, 1132 F.2d would view the Board convinced am not way if same in the considerations irrelevant
it eliminated judge and immigration by the
highlighted issues the difficult with
truly grappled Hengan, 79 actually raises. See 64; Urukov F.3d at cf. Cir.1995) deporting (affirming order organization, Ilinden of different
member Board, strongest possi terms “in the
urging applica petitioner’s
ble, re-examine” these additional ob With asylum).
tion for vacating then, join
servations, the court I remanding for fur order
the Board’s proceedings.
ther America, STATES
UNITED
Plaintiff-Appellee, and Veronica M. THOMPSON
Veronica Defendants-Appellants.
Andalon, 95-3356, 95-3357.
Nos. Appeals, Court
United States Circuit.
Seventh May
Argued Feb.
Decided