Roberto Antonio Aguilera-Cota v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

NORRIS, INS, (9th Cir. Rivas v. Before REINHARDT 1990) Judges. TROTT, (citing Dias-Escobar Circuit (9th Cir.1986)). “Questions of REINHARDT, Judge: Circuit law, applied such as whether the BIA petitions standard, Aguilera-Cota Antonio de appropriate Roberto reviewed of the Board of the decision for review of Arteaga novo.” “BIA”) (the holding Immigration Appeals Cir.1988). grant asylum. We ineligible him review, the BIA’s deci- reverse petition for DISCUSSION Attorney Gen- so that sion remand discretion under sec- eral exercise INS, v. Under Cardoza-Fonseca 1980, 208(a) Refugee of 8 the Act tion (9th Cir.1985),aff'd, F.2d 1448 480 U.S. 767 “Act”). 1158(a) (1990) (the U.S.C. § 1207, (1987), 421, 107 94 L.Ed.2d 434 S.Ct. refugee for status and qualifies an alien FACTS eligible asylum if he can demonstrate fled El Aguilera-Cota Antonio Roberto The persecution. well-founded he fled 1984. Before in March of Salvador “well-founded fear” standard has both Aguilera the Cen- country, worked for the The subjective component. objective and “ during the 1983- tral of Elections Board showing, component ‘requires a objective govern- presidential As a 1984 elections. direct, credible, specific by and evidence he had been issued employee, ment record, support facts the that would Although card. government identification fear that the faces reasonable ” neutral, he not feel politically did he was INS, persecution.’ Rodriguez-Rivera v. early government. In working safe the 998, (9th Cir.1988) (quoting 1002 848 March, let- Aguilera received 441, INS, 443 794 F.2d Rebollo-Jovel handwritten, The name it. ter with his (9th Cir.1986)). objective facts “That the anonymous under his door at note was left per through credible and are established home, quit job or it warned him and testimony applicant the does suasive Aguilera destroyed pay consequences. objective.” fears Bola make those less later, days an unidenti- the note. Several 1277, 767 F.2d nos-Hernandez looking him. to his house fied man came (9th Cir.1984). subjective compo The concerning sister questioned man applicant have a requires nent job with and his Aguilera’s whereabouts persecuted. that he genuine concern will going her government. He told he was Id. life, fearing Aguilera, for his to return. later, days and on El a few seriously peti- fled Salvador It is contested that 18, 1984, entered the United States. March persecution. subjective fear of tioner has a by gun- killed Aguilera’s cousin had been here, However, many asy- as in so similar Archbishop the time shots around cases, question must principal lum we assassinated, his niece and Romero was subjective fear confront is whether that by bullets when had been wounded objective To has sufficient basis. military in com- engaged guerrillas and any question re- extent exists with he en- Before front his home. bat genuineness spect petitioner’s to the service, Aguilera’s house tered fear, regard- it is answered our decision by the at one had been ransacked component. ing objective morning, and he had twice o’clock in the interrogated forced off buses and been Cardoza-Fonseca, 767 F.2d army. detained 1207, aff'd, 480 U.S. 107 S.Ct. “asylum appli we held that L.Ed.2d OF REVIEW STANDARD through present ‘specific cants facts’ must past per findings objective prove evidence either We review the BIA’s factual ‘good future or reason’ under “substantial evidence” standard. secution persecution.” Documentary First, evidence es the BIA and the IJ failed to tablishing past persecution recognize or threat of fu fell within the defi persecution usually ture sufficient to sat refugee nition of imputed of his isfy objective component of the well- “political opinion.” Refugees persons But founded fear standard. Id. at 1453. who flee their native land because of “a recognized refugees have also fre we well-founded fear of on ac quently possess documentary evi do not race, religion, nationality, count of mem regarding dence such events. “Authentic bership particular in a group, po social refugees rarely are to offer direct able opinion.” 1101(a)(42)(A) litical 8 U.S.C. § specific corroboration threats.” Bolan (1990). though Aguilera Even did not ex os-Hernandez, at 1285. Where press “political opinion” typical available, applicant’s the evidence is not fashion, he fits within statutory defini credible, testimony per if it is will suffice tion of that term under the doctrine of suasive, “If the specific. alien’s own imputed political opinion. Lazo-Majano v. threat, when unrefuted about (9th Cir.1987). credible, were insufficient to establish The threats employment were based on his made, the threat fact that presumed support government. impossible [any political ‘close to be The anonymous note him quit warned to refugee] [asy to make out a case for government job pay his or the conse ” (quoting Id. McMullen v. 658 lum.]’ quences. short, In specifically he was 1312, Cir.1981)). F.2d 1319 threatened perceived because of his adher government’s ence to the cause. Aguilera’s testimony reveals that his persecution primarily fear of was based on held, As we previously have “In de closely In two related events: March ciding anyone whether has a well-founded working for the Board of while Central persecution danger losing or is in Elections, he received a note. liberty political life or opinion, because of a typed anonymous The him to note warned person one must continue to look at the quit job pay consequences. or Sev- perspective persecutor. from the of the If later, days stranger eral came to his persecutor person guilty thinks the of a looking stranger house for him. The asked political opinion, person then the is at risk.” him, many in- questions his sister about Thus, it crucial Id. is not whether the cluding relating questions a number of actually espoused individual the views of employment government, with the government high or whether he was a going told her that he was to return. employee; level or low level what is deter Aguilera days fled El la- Salvador several persecutors thought. minative is what the ter.2 Rivas, (“An 899 at 867 alien See also F.2d (the BIA Immigration Judge persecu and the makes out a case of likelihood of “IJ”) imputed political committed errors on the a number of tion basis of belief reaching Aguilera alleged perse in the conclusion that did if can that establish [he] [his] falsely persecu- likely not have well-founded fear of cutor is to accuse [him] political engaging tion. holding certain beliefs Thus, Supreme during Aguilera, the extent that the To Court declined at home raid. description "to a detailed being target persecution by set forth of how the addition to applied,” fear' test should be 'well-founded U.S. at opponents, may government’s also have been a opinion 107 S.Ct. at our subject by government of harrassment itself. controlling this issue continues to be law in this Aguilera also mentions two other incidents in circuit. interrogated which he was forced off buses and military, and detained but we do not incidents, petitioner 2. Prior to these had particularly them relevant to his claim consider episodes experienced other caused him con- asylum. interpretation A reasonable service, government he cern. Before entered suggest only latter two incidents would military his home was ransacked at one out, Aguilera might, pressed if his luck ran morning. They o'clock in the searched for day. into service some weapons, flyers, propaganda subversive ma- Aguilera throughout the house. was not terials political perse- given adequate have notice our in certain acts and been [his] likely expects sign to harm on the basis of government cutor them to their [him] ease, accusation.”) In this the undis- names reveal their identities individual Aguilera’s status puted evidence is that as they threatening messages. when deliver employee oppo- caused the government previously We tried make it clear have classify him as nents applicants required asylum opinion. person “guilty” of a documentary produce evidence of events persist of civil unrest which the conditions such those here. As we have involved Salvador, similar- Aguilera and others in El said, likely pro hardly “Persecutors are oppor- ly always given the are not situated attesting vide their victims affidavits misunderstandings tunity clarify such persecution.” to their acts Bolanos- occurs.3 prejudice before termination with Hernandez, 1285; see also Zavala-Bonilla v. legal error significant The second (the (9th Cir.1984) petitioner hardly “could of an by the BIA and the IJ was the use certify ask in El the authorities Salvador evaluating Aguilera’s improper standard persecuted give she would be should she result, they testimony. As a failed return”). proper weight to essential to the IJ’s decision his case.4 A review of Aguilera’s inability Nor does assessing that in reveals identify precise of the threat source component of the well- objective met the justifi render less test, imposed a the IJ far founded fear able; fact, anonymous note stringent burden on than more greater anxiety signed cause even than a permissible deemed Cardoza-Fonse- we one, anonymous of since the case This error ca and Bolanos-Hernandez. potential pro identify threat one cannot the materially affected the outcome of the ceedings. may legitimately harm as source of and sume, at least a violent and chaotic socie Aguilera’s testimony con- It is clear that making ty, party the the has that threat cerning threatening the note the visit and Moreover, ability carry the it out. the stranger shortly by thereafter constitutes a petitioner possess did the fact that “support “specific evidence” sufficient a note for the IJ to read was irrelevant. As petitioner that reasonable fear faces noted, “refugees we have sometimes are persecution.” Rodríguez-Rivera, 848 F.2d position gather documentary no evidence IJ, however, did at 1002. The not believe establishing specific persecu or individual should be accorded much note persecution.” tion or a threat of Cardoza- weight did not know Fonseca, thing 767 F.2d at 1453. The last he not retain who wrote it and because did carry do is a victim want to around Aguilera the note was not it. testified that threatening Doing with him. so note destroyed it read- signed and that he after detention, question could cause extended nothing ing it. There is novel about the death, ing or even torture whichever expect- cannot concept persecutors by stop happened side chance search arbitrary evidentiary ed to conform to rules legal him. the correct is Immigration Natu- When standard by the established Aguilera’s Service; applied, left- it is clear that testimo neither Salvadoran ralization terrorists, ny concerning strongly supports Eastern the note ists nor Middle such as Hezbollah, objective persecution. of the PLO or members Moreover, strong refugee danger contemplated pro- 3. case can be under the made 1101(a)(42)(A) (1990). based on status as § vision. See 8 U.S.C. phrase employee is covered another in the Although statute well. association or Because BIA affirmed the determination membership specifically clause refers to social only conclusory the IJ discussion of affiliating groups, consequences oneself issues, generally agreed we assume it anathema, employer from with an is Accordingly, with the IJ’s discussion them. political standpoint, social or armed we focus on the IJ’s decision. clearly type rebels would seem to constitute the respect negative credibility

With to the visit the basis for a finding, house, stranger petitioner’s equally but those reasons must be substantial and legitimate clear that the IJ committed a serious error must bear a nexus to the find- Thus, weight ing. accord when he failed to sufficient there must be rational and Aguilera’s testimony. discounting supportable connection between the rea- importance interrogation cited and peti- sons the conclusion that the occurred, stranger the IJ stressed that the tioner is not credible. In cases of this nature, promise returning principal never fulfilled his where the frequently only initial visit. petitioner’s petitioner’s home after his source of evidence is the However, obviously impor testimony, particularly this fact of no important it is country in Petitioner left the tance. determination be based on stranger’s days appropriate for his life a few after the factors. receipt appearance at his home and his The fact that an IJ considers Thus, wholly it is note. petitioner not to be credible constitutes the significance stranger did without beginning not the inquiry. end of our As clearly There no need for not return. stated, Immigration we have “When warning Aguilera him to do so. heeded the Judge provides specific ques reasons for note, government position left his tioning credibility, a witness’s this court visit, stranger’s and fled the after the first may evaluate those reasons to determine country. Again, it was clear error for the they grounds upon are valid which IJ, evi and thus the BIA to discount this applicant to base a that the is not arbitrary illogical a rea dence for so Vilorio-Lopez credible.” reasoning A decision on that is son. based case, Cir.1988). This is the

patently erroneous cannot stand.5 example, when the IJ makes an adverse credibility finding petitioner’s The IJ also found that based Turcios, entirely as a witness. “evasiveness.” 821 F.2d at 1400.6 was “not credible” credibility findings accept blindly an IJ’s conclusion We review under a sub We do Rather, petitioner is not credible. stantial evidence standard. Turcios v. that a (9th Cir.1987). we examine the record to see whether sub conclusion, supports that “Although immigration judge’s an credibili stantial evidence reasoning the em ty findings granted defer and determine whether substantial courts, fatally is flawed. It is not by reviewing ployed by ence a trier of fact the IJ point B positive testimony enough that the IJ has arrived at rejects who a witness’s also; A, might point or that others judgment in his or her it lacks from because answer is: was it credibility specific, cogent question we must should ‘offer ” (citations In to do so? Damaize-Job v. reason Id. reasonable for disbelief.’ [his] (9th Cir.1986), omitted). only The IJ must not articulate country by improperly discounting where the lives and free- IJ resided in a 5. The also erred clearly persons large collateral evidence which was relevant are threat- number of dom of Aguilera’s application. The IJ found it “diffi may anything make the ... that fact ened. If Aguilera's cult to understand” how the death of cousin, credible.”). serious or The evi- threat more merely who was one of "a number of forming presented was crucial in a com- dence time," injury people at the same and the killed plete picture and the fear of the conditions possibly Aguilera. In his niece could affect Aguilera under which lived in El Salvador. personal emotional and toll addition to the these incidents inflicted petitioner, on the is evasive can be deter- 6. Whether witness background critical evidence of violence was objectively from an examination mined general country. in his ”[G]ener conditions may present a Demeanor evidence record. concerning oppressive condi al information problem. We need not con- somewhat different specific support is relevant to information tions here, however, IJ's how we review an sider relating well-founded fear of to an individual’s regarding petitioner’s demean- 564; determination Zavala-Bonilla, persecution." 730 F.2d at case, IJ nor BIA Bolanos-Hernandez, or. In this neither the 767 F.2d at 1285 see also regarding Aguilera’s any (“It significance observations of a relied on should be obvious that specific to an individual’s life or freedom threat demeanor. by individual is not lessened the fact that the petitioner’s paramilitary group the fact that he had example, questioned the the IJ asylum applica marry failure to children on his credibility of his listed two fact We We that it tion he had four children. of his children. held when mother BIA, stating for the IJ base his reversed the IJ and the impermissible was “ ‘a credibility finding petition- on the do not negative such ‘trivial errors’ constitute upon finding ground area. “In to base a personal choices this Id. valid which er’s ” short, upon by asylum applicant is not relied the IJ that an credible.’ the information omitted). (citation petitioner’s] credibility re- Id. also Vilorio-Lo question See [the (minor at 1142 nothing pez, about or inconsistencies whether not veals [the individual, regard an two individuals petitioner] is honest incident, length of safety ing not he for his the date of the whether or feared legitimate, men sheltered from the had no time the were native IJ [his land]. basis, payment question petition- squad, and was death articulable [the (citations not an credibility....” at 1338 made for their accommodation were Id. er’s] omitted). credibility an adverse adequate bases for finding). If minor inconsistencies or mis Here, Aguilera’s questioned the IJ representations unimportant facts can Aguilera’s oral credibility because testimo adverse not constitute the basis an ny information not set forth included finding,7 credibility minor omis a fortiori asylum from the IJ's application. Aside sions cannot. complaint Aguilera proof no had delivered, note had been Clearly, did lie or mis Aguilera not only for the determina basis asylum applica represent the facts on his that Aguilera tion was the IJ’s observation explanation why no tion. The IJ offered application list on the two had failed to col Aguilera’s failure to mention the two involving his incidents relatives. collateral application him lateral incidents in his made finding—if The IJ’s indeed statement credible,” entirely since there no “not were entirely individual “not credible” set the information contradictions between finding—is not supported be termed a testimony. application and his forth in requisite evidence. The nex substantial hearing, At that his testified lacking. Aguilera’s failure to file an us by gunshots killed around cousin was complete as application form was as killed, Archbishop Romero was time that cannot, more, might be desired without his niece wounded bullets properly basis for serve guerrillas en when the short, credibility. lack basis gaged in combat in front of his home. finding does meet the the IJ’s test to these specifically While he did refer legitimacy. id. See in sub application, two incidents his he did poor, sequently copies out submit of his cousin’s frequently are filled Forms newspaper article people speak English who not death certificate and a illiterate do involving niece describing the incident his and unable retain counsel. Under circumstances, testimony. Nothing his expect support these the IJs cannot oral changed his provided applications suggests in petitioner the the the answers time he comprehensive thorough as or as as account of the between the events legal application if in a and the they completed asylum set forth brief. the would be testimony. A failure gave time he his oral Martinez-Sanckez (9th Cir.1986), claim every ground the for a we reversed state each and the time of initial finding petitioner asylum that the not a of at the IJ’s was claim, application prejudice the IJ had based not credible witness. There should petitioner in the record not where the finding particularly on inconsistencies joined provides petitioner subsequently date the documentation such as the Turcios, petitioner's ty previously finding. We We that a F.2d 1400-01. have held light require the INS IJs to evaluate such statements in that he lied to about admission citizenship negative support of the case. does not credibili- of all the circumstances Thus, opinion the find- we conclude from IJ’s testimony. IJ’s then the support his credibility for petitioner] an otherwise ing petitioner lacked credible [the merit, or, wholly omitted). as (citation reason is this without witness.” Id. it, “legitimate.” puts Damaize-Job reading

787 F.2d at 1338. It is clear from a of the opinion wholly the aside from IJ’s Moreover, a matter as im credibility question, Aguilera’s he found this, asylum applicant’s if an portant as eligibili testimony insufficient to establish and he rejected is to be re plea is to be asylum. We the rea ty for discussed IJ’s to face possibly renewed turned home— earlier, reaching sons for that conclusion simply because an IJ threats to his life— pointed errors on which out credibility, IJ must make a doubts premised.9 conclusion was The evi direct that he is explicit and more by Aguilera, properly when dence adduced here. The was made mere untruthful than light in credited and when viewed entirely “not petitioner is that a statement applicable legal principles, compels op enough. As we did is not credible” posite namely, Turcios, the statement of find that “[w]e conclusion— [Aguilera’s] asylum. previously de have given rejecting eligible We reasons that sub testimony inadequate and held in in which Salvadorans tailed other cases ad support subject does extremists that stantial evidence to threats were Turcios, 821 credibility finding.” verse here suffi type evidence of the adduced at 1399.8 to establish a well-founded fear of cient cases, persecution. In most of these minor omission Other than the petitioner’s solely evidence consisted given by the insignificant reasons the other testimony. own In a of the cases number IJ, us “a ‘total is in the before there case involving threats of violence to Salvado contradictory evidence’ absence of rans, petitioner’s we even held that potentially under as a whole record stringent testimony met the more standard credibility.” Da petitioner’s] mines [the probability persecution,10 of clear while maize-Job, 1338. Under these 787 F.2d at satisfying the well-founded circumstances, testimony accept the we fortiori See, Canju e.g., standard. do so explained reasons we true. We INS, 784 889-90 ra-Flores v. Damaize-Job, presume saying “[w]e Cir.1985)(efforts Guard to National any additional reasons to that if the IJ had petitioner, combined locate credibility, the IJ petitioner’s] doubt [the uncle, prior participation of an death decision below. have stated so were sufficient organization, a leftist further con expressed no Because the IJ persecution, probability a clear cerns, establish only explicitly articulated and the fear); factors, a well-founded impermissible and thus a rested on reasons fortiori against petitioner ruled also note that the BIA that the 8. The contends plenary record and the issue before the review of the to raise the after issues, failed thereby deny having that issue. We dis- the INS’ BIA and waived first decided challenge petitioner's the IJ’s con- agree. summary motion for affirmance. carry failed to clusion that his comprehend proof is sufficient burden 441, Cardoza-Fonseca, U.S. at 107 10. In 480 finding. credibility component over, More- that of 1218, clearly Supreme deline Court S.Ct. at application sup- petitioner's was since the two standards. ated the distinction between testimony, exclusively by ported his own almost withholding deportation of In order to obtain purpose obviously at all to an be no there would 243(h), show must under section individual challenge appeal a to the if it did not include deported, if a life "would be threatened” that his event, any determination. stringent under section more standard than adopted agreement parties that the BIA are in 208(a). only requires a show The latter section petitioner was "not the IJ’s persecution. We ing of well-founded fear of entirely credible.” has met the dear- that "an alien who have held has, fortiori, demonstrat probability a standard opinion appears supra, 9. As noted BIA's persecution.” Bola of analy- ed a well-founded fear nos-Hernandez, generally legal accept and factual the IJ’s ses, suggests 767 F.2d at party otherwise. We and neither 1384 he Attorney so that General peti- claim to (although the Rivas, F.2d at 873 899 Rivas, discretion.”); 899 neutral, his may she estab- exercise politically tioner was Turcios, 829 persecution, (same); Artiga of clear F.2d at 873 probability lished a fear, Turcios, well-founded at (same); a 821 F.2d thus a 724 F.2d at fortiori government po- Bolanos-Hernandez, attributed the 767 (same); 1403 family guerrilla members opinions of (“Because litical errone- the Board F.2d at 1288 v. her); Turcios Artiga petitioner] ously determined [the Cir.1987) (incidents (9th involving 720, 724 Attorney asylum, the Gen- eligible for appearance, guerrillas opportunity exercise eral not had the has asking for searching determining in his discretion meet name, were sufficient so that grant this relief. We remand stan- persecution of probability clear in Attorney may do so accord- General now dard, the well-founded and thus a 8 with the enumerated in fortiori ance factors Turcios, 1403 standard); F.2d at 821 fear (1983).”). 208.8 C.F.R. § peti- neutrality, (in political of his spite Bolanos-Hernandez, Here, 767 in convers- tioner, and tortured arrested correct “When the stan- F.2d leftist, associating with a known ing and that the deci- applied, it clear dards perse- of probability a clear demonstrated sup- petitioner] is not deport sion [the cution, well-founded and thus fortiori ” Be- by substantial evidence.:.. ported Bolanos-Hernandez, persecution); of fear supported decision is not the BIA’s cause (the petitioner’s determi- at 1288 because, when evidence and substantial neutral, efforts spite in of nation to remain credited, Aguilera has con- testimony is him and their guerrillas to recruit of clusively a well-founded fear demonstrated join their if he did not kill him threat to and remand for we reverse persecution, of forces, to demonstrate was sufficient exercise of his dis- Attorney General’s and thus a persecution, probability clear 208(a) Act. under section cretion persecu- fear of a well-founded

fortiori petition instant tion). purposes of the For AND REVERSED REMANDED. meet review, required to Aguilera was only. the lesser standard dissenting: TROTT, Judge, Circuit the record We have reviewed At- 1158(a)provides that the 8 U.S.C. § sug full, which there is no evidence grant his discretion torney General qualify for does gests qualifies as “refu- to an alien who asylum conversely, put refugee status. Or meaning of 8 U.S.C. gee” within conclusively demonstrates the record 1101(a)(42)(A) (1990). Section § asylum relief. As eligible Aguilera is as, “refugee” 1101(a)(42)(A) defines INS, 830 F.2d in Blanco-Comarribas or “who is unable part, an alien relevant find, (9th Cir.1987), based “We country of na- to” his unwilling to return case, petition record this on the [the or a well- persecution tionality “because refugee sta granted have been should er] on account founded circumstances, all tus.” Under such particular social membership in a ... petition “remand is for remains us [the ” To opinion.... meet group, Attorney so General claim the er’s] standard, must Aguilera-Cota show this sec his discretion may exercise under he subjectively persecution is “both fear refu 208(a) Act.” Id. of the When tion objectively reasonable.” genuine established well-founded gee has Blanco-Comarribas, remedy is a appropriate persecution, the Cir.1987) Sanchez-Trujillo (citing regarding BIA’s decision reversal (9th Cir.1986)). to the asylum and a remand eligibility for supports evidence Substantial that he determine Attorney so General finding Aguilera-Cota failed that Board’s also grant that relief. See to persecu- fear of a well-founded (“Accord to establish 784 F.2d at 890 Canjura-Flores, of ransacking Single episodes of asylum tion. petitioner’s] ingly, we remand [the 1385 1986, 27, opinion of June In his written military, receipt his of by the his house following: Immigration Judge said the instructing anonymous note so-called note temporary Finally, low-level this resign from his him to Elections, he respondent allegedly received while Board of job with Salvadoran not a working for the was regarding his home inquiry made at an persecu- a well-founded fear of basis for his of episodes stranger; two job by a his to believe all, of it is tion. First mil by the Salvadoran difficult nearly being drafted in why anyone be interested would relatives his against violence itary; and El employee of the Salvadoran low-level (all oc himself danger to any unlinked interested government and would be in ago) not do years than five curring more any quit his serving him with note reasonable basis objectively an establish course, Respondent, has employment. of has Aguilera-Cota persecution. for slipped the note under no idea who appreci “predicament his shown not was never shown any- door. The note dangers faced from ably different respondent’s only one have else. We Sarvia-Quintanilla countrymen.” all his receive a testimony that he did fact Cir.1985). 1387, (9th INS, 1394 767 F.2d v. is not Respondent as a witness note. in a violence coun generalized of Evidence testimony in the entirely credible. His support a is insufficient try by itself hearing varies information from See, inter “refugee” status. for claim application asy- on the submitted for INS, 813 F.2d 279, alia, v. Mendez-Efrain lum. He mentions incidents in his testi- INS, v. Cir.1987); Rebollo-Jovel (9th 282 brought out or even mony that are not Zepeda- Cir.1986), (9th 448 asy- application for mentioned (9th INS, v. Melendez home The man that came to his lum. ... not Cir.1984). draft does consti A national (almost looking him in his absence Rodriquez-Rivera persecution. tute things hap- always that these it seems Ka Cir.1988); (9th 848 F.2d absence) not respondent’s does pen veh-Haghigy information provide with sufficient us curiam). Cir.1986) Aguilera-Cota (per him or looking for who was determine of persecution on account shown has apparently stranger so-called why. This political form of neutrality as a to his home because never returned Rodriguez-Rivera, See opinion. to reside family continued [sic] perse not shown Similarly, has 1005. he me today. It is same home difficult him, who, like Salvadorans cution two than to see after period of more Fur Elections.1 for the Board worked any have why respondent years suggests he is ther, record evidence El Salvador if to return to fear he were draft, avoid the by desire motivated added) (Emphasis today. persecution. genuine fear Judge Immigration What more was Judge Moreover, Immigration made state- prior inconsistent cited to do? He Aguilera- Aguil- as to ments, aspects adverse to believe specific reasons appar- “as a wit- credibility, finding up, were made Cota’s era-Cota’s disappearing This ness, entirely strangers is not credible.” ently phantom [he] their notes, his “fear” finding extends both whether claims bearers of Plus, alterna- an as well as to whether was genuine to swallow. face hard appears on flight opin- majority explanation reasonable. objectively tive avoid finding away, paying only he wishes sweeps this the record: ion opinion view, majority requirement my duty. to the we service lip of the view substitutes its to a inappropriately substantial deference trier 'grant Immi- credibility for positive rejects witness’s testi- witness’s who fact so, all re- it does Judge, and credibility. gration it lacks mony because Aguilera-Cota failed to opinion the effect noteworthy that the United States also It is persecution in Rights well-founded establish a Bureau of Human Department of State’s advisory Salvador. El issued Affairs and Humanitarian Rule pursuant court to Circuit principles of en banc disregard of basic spect, in 35-3. jurisprudence. review standard

Blanco-Comarribas, immigration respon- “I

judge have observed stated: [the on the witness physical demeanor

dent’s] candid, stand, credible appears to be That was F.2d at 1042. sincere.” 830 subjec- requisite establish

all it took to judge Here, immigration ex- fear.

tive of the adverse

plained his view Thulin; LAIDLEY; Cindy Bettye relegate his obser- Wilma petitioner, but we Waisner, trashpile, Redding; find- and Renee findings to vations and Plaintiffs-Appellants, everything. diaphanous excuses ing of the Board the decision I affirm Appeals. Immigration McCLAIN, individually Lantz Attorney capacity as District official Oklahoma; County, Ted Creek State Ritter, individually and in his official capacity At Director of the District torney’s Training Coordination Coun Commissioners, cil; County Board of Creek, Oklahoma, County of State of Defendants-Appellees. America, STATES UNITED Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 89-5016. Appeals, United States Court KIMBALL, Tenth Circuit.

Ted H. Defendant-Appellant. Sept. 1990. No. 87-1392. Appeals, Court of United States

Ninth Circuit.

Sept. GOODWIN, Judge, Chief

Before TANG,

BROWNING, WALLACE, HUG, FLETCHER, FARRIS,

SCHROEDER, POOLE,

PREGERSON, ALARCON, CANBY, NORRIS,

NELSON, HALL,

REINHARDT, BEEZER, KOZINSKI, BRUNETTI,

WIGGINS, O’SCANNLAIN,

NOONAN, THOMPSON,

LEAVY, TROTT, FERNANDEZ

RYMER, Judges. Circuit

ORDER majority of nonre-

Upon the vote of a court, it regular judges active of this

cused reheard

is ordered that this case be

Case Details

Case Name: Roberto Antonio Aguilera-Cota v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Sep 21, 1990

Citation: 914 F.2d 1375

Docket Number: 88-7389

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.