Wilfredo Mendoza Perez v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
902 F.2d 760
9th Cir.
1990
Check Treatment

*1 PEREZ, MENDOZA Wilfredo

Petitioner, AND NATURALI- IMMIGRATION

U.S. SERVICE, Respondent.

ZATION 89-70035.

No. Appeals, Court

United States Circuit.

Ninth 14, 1990. March

Argued and Submitted 7,May

Decided Clinic, Blum, Asylum Appeals

Carolyn P. Cal., Law, Berkeley, Hall School Boalt Ehrman, Heller, Garcia-Rodriguez Sergio Francisco, Cal., McAuliffe, San &White petitioner. Walters, Office and Mark M. Smith

Alice Div., U.S. Litigation, Civ. Immigration D.C., Justice, for re- Washington, Dept, of spondent. SNEED, FARRIS

Before FERNANDEZ, Judges. Circuit *2 FARRIS, Judge: he inquired Circuit fled. Mendoza’s father-in-law police a friend in department of the local appeals the denial of his Mr. Mendoza about the seriousness of the threat: The deportation request for of seriously advice was to take the threat application political asylum. At is- his country. to leave the employer Mendoza’s there substantial evi- sue whether was had the same advice. There testimony was Immigration of dence on which the Board he after fled men asked for him at his Immigration Appeals could affirm the home, although no other members of his Judge’s finding that Mendoza did not es- family reported being harassed or threat- probability perse- “clear of tablish either a any way. ened perse- cution” or a “well-founded fear” of cution. Immigration Judge The and BIA made explicit finding credibility, no on Mendoza’s

FACTS therefore, review, purposes of this we Salvadoran, Mendoza, presume an El entered the of all Mendoza’s statements to be inspection on March Artiga credible. See Turcios v.

United States without 11, 1982, (9th Cir.1987). across Mexican-American bor- F.2d by apprehended der. He was the INS and deportation proceedings were started. On DISCUSSION 11, 1985, deporta- March Mendoza conceded Withholding Deportation: 8 U.S.C. 7. bility Immigration Judge to the and moved 1253(h) § further of his

to remand for consideration asylum application. This motion was de- 1253(h)(1) Title 8 U.S.C. section appealed nied and to the Board of Mendoza provides that Immigration Appeals, ap- which denied Attorney The deport General shall not deportation peal voluntary and ordered on country return alien to a if ... October Attorney General determines that such request

Mendoza bases his for withhold- alien’s life or freedom would be threat- ing fact on the country ened in such on account of [1] shortly before he left El he was threatened with serious Salvador. Mendo- harm race, bership [2] in a religion, particular [3] nationality, social group, [4] mem- or [5] za was an accountant with the Salvadoran political opinion. Communal Union for between three and qualify To under this section the alien must years, country. He five before he left the probability” persecution, establish “clear group as a described the Communal Union listed, by for one of five reasons

that works with the American Institute for group government government or a Development Free Labor to assist the for- control, cannot if the alien were to be re agricultural cooperatives among mation Artiga e.g., See country. turned peasants. helped Mendoza landless Turcios 829 F.2d manage farmers form and the financial as- Cir.1987). provided pects cooperatives throughout the coun- believed, Mendoza, if sufficient tryside. activity He testified that this was probability establish questioned government, which him as an individual is “more than encouragement viewed such work Stevic, 407, 424, not.” See INS v. U.S. peasants join guerrillas. 2489, 2498, (1984); 104 S.Ct. 81 L.Ed.2d 321 Turcios, Artiga supra; Estrada v. February Mendoza received a

On (9th Cir.1985) (persecu him letter addressed to at his home. The if Mendoza did not tion directed at alien as an individ letter threatened must be hours, ual). general country forty-eight leave the within Evidence of violence insufficient, consequences. country he al would suffer Mendo- alien’s home help support spe knowing though may za testified to of others with the Turcios, Artiga cific claims. Institute who received similar threats INS, killed, 723; Zavala-Bonilla v. and had been both before and after him, (3) did “ask around” for he We have allowed needed to them, (4) bulges he saw regarding- recognize alien’s own “[a]n probability clothing a clear which he to be threats their believed establish[] [to] persecution, supported by if type gun credible new of machine carried *3 that the general documentary (5) evidence he former guerrillas, had read about after petitioner was out geted Because he has been opposed petitioners in other cases where we have portation. For been threatened because guerrillas, sought were killed, court concluded that doza’s, members, see, fear has a Artiga reversed F.2d 723 duced actual letter to its existence and the destruction. There guably tied to the Hernandez ers been contested. His wife also nected with such and arrests of a controlled squad. him threats should be considered Cir.1984). While who worked for was fact former immediately individually. F.2d willing which Mendoza was by men he involving Turcios, there Mendoza’s based on the of its at 724. BIA’s four unidentified men who were (9th Cir.1988); Argueta failed to show has been tar- the BIA’s conclusion that stronger evidentiary persecution military v. that he to act suggests that the are INS, receipt and content has not instance, the anti-government guerrillas. e.g., Desir denials (9th Cir.1985), 829 threatened actual That stronger reasonably He groups. petitioner against threat was is allegedly F.2d government—a his government, gave failed directly, specifically, following he F.2d has intro- “Artiga beatings, supposedly sought is unreasonable.” organization in Artiga Turcios that his life has singled at he had been he cases than Men- individuals reasons 723; by group ar 1277,1285 or his believes received, Ilchert, produce persecutors targeted testified as seriously.” Mendoza’s facts: base than politically Bolanos- that oth out and assaults, yet singled for its family death to be were con but He not the de- at Hernandez-Ortiz was duct persecution In characteristics not,” and that with the guerrillas. Mendoza was servicemen See tivation at persecutor's view and tion, not believe reason, when there persecutor’s, nationality, tionship between the victim’s, threats groups or individuals because of mining social ence given struction. entity viding Accepting, as we stitutes prior Section perspective of the violence Sagermark Mendoza it is oppression so cases, group, persecution or individual men. [(9th whether persecution. 102, 107(9th restrictive or and we permissible [1253(h) could be read as Artiga victim, being determining only violence, membership in a sufficiently is a difference between the “Persecution” occurs constitute (9th Cir.1988). we have considered set persecutor can or also, Cir.1985)]; must also persecutor; views and actions of section [v. political opinion, result forth oppressive conduct targeted as well be considered never which ] do, was Desir v. INS], 767 F.2d responsible for the to examine as well as to alleged persecutor. Cir.1969). two. that of that in section examine the mechanical a con of one of the five However, political persecu “more 777 F.2d 509 may properly whether threats specific will not tolerate. is show Kovac v. and killed race, religion, the we Ilchert, inflicted the any particular may look threat in deter a differ For this the con- position the mo 1253(h). contact victim; we [645] rela than pro con real the on do a land Given Mendoza’s involvement with pointed to him at a He out distance. was (1) organization apparent reform and the they guerrillas they sure were because nickname, squad, military (2) right-wing death Mendoza’s testimo- his if from knew military, they ny politically feared would have known his exact presumably support address and would not motivated finds record. have Cf Hernandez-Ortiz v. Ocampo kill him. was years killed five Ilchert, Cir.1985); Desir v. Estrada, 840 F.2d 723 later and because of his ties to Turcios, Artiga (9th Cir.1988); 829 F.2d Ocampo, feared for his if life he was turned to Supposedly, Guatemala. officials looked for him at his mother’s house. Es- Turcios, Artiga We concluded in arrested, detained, trada was never or in- explanation there was “no reasonable on terrogated by any government officials. the record for four [the men’s] The BIA Immigration Judge held that sought actions other than that the men testimony regarding the threats was not forcibly Artiga guerrilla to recruit affirming BIA, credible. gave we Similarly, cause.” 829 F.2d at 724. there proper finding deference to the on credibili- *4 for the is no reasonable basis threat to ty, noting supported was the except Mendoza his ties to the Communal important evidence. This is an distinction peasants Union and its work with the and Mendoza, from who is deemed credible. Canjura-Flores v. land reform. See also INS, 784 F.2d 885 second testimony credible, When an alien’s case where we reversed a BIA denial of point BIA must to substantial evidence in withholding deportation. record, that there proba is not a “clear bility” subject the alien will be to upon by

The cases relied the INS are persecution if withholding the BIA denies Sarvia- distinguishable. example, in For Sarvia-Quintan deportation. e.g., See Quintanilla INS, (9th v. 767 F.2d 1387 INS, illa v. United 1387, States 767 Cir.1985), withholding the BIA’s denial of (9th Cir.1985) (threat 1392-94 speculative deportation asylum was affirmed. detail); Quintanilla-Ticas lacking specific There were no threats. What was 955, (9th Cir.1986) 957 alleged as threats came from former asso- (same). It failed to do so. group petitioner ciates in a leftist dropped disagreement out of because of with its violent tactics. Affidavits relied Asylum: II. Political 8 U.S.C. upon by the alien failed to corroborate his 1101(a)m(A), 1158(a) §§ testimony specific threats had been qualify political asylum To for made, suggest nor that his associates were “genuine,” alien must that his fear show looking posed for him or him a threat. 509, Hernandez-Ortiz v. Further, credibility very Sarvia’s was much (9th Cir.1985), and, credible, direct, “by history doubt because of an admitted record,” Diaz-Esco specific evidence in the dishonesty. bar v. 1488, Cir. Estrada v. 775 F.2d 1018 Cir. 1986), persecution is a “reasonable 1985), is another case where we affirmed Cardoza-Fonseca, INS possibility,” deporta the BIA’s denial of 421, 440, 107 S.Ct. U.S. asylum. tion and Estrada was a member Stevic, (1987), quoting L.Ed.2d 434 right wing party, of a for which he distrib 2489, 2498, 467 U.S. 104 S.Ct. uted leaflets. He also worked as a farm (1984). L.Ed.2d Past alone messenger party’s

hand and a for the lead may satisfy general requirement. er, Ocampo. played Estrada soccer with a Ilchert, ly Desir v. police illegalities by team and learned of police, reported Ocampo. which he Ocampo public alleg went Estrada was The well-founded fear standard is edly threatened, satisfy probability but he could not at all clear easier than the form, time, place, required withholding deporta as to the standard tion, see the threats. Cardoza-Fonseca source of Estrada left 480 U.S. 1222-23, country got permit 449-50, after he an exit from 107 S.Ct. (1987), government. openly He never ex L.Ed.2d has sat which Mendoza pressed political opinion against eligible asy the Gua isfied. Thus Mendoza is government they might temalan because lum. deportation” “withholding of lum” and CONCLUSION part springs difficulty The cases. credi- presumed Mendoza’s meaningful adversarial of a the absence direct, specific, individ- and evidenced

ble illegal alien The system. in the process insufficient There is ual threat. judge who story to an tells reverse We requests. deny Mendoza’s a similar same or heard the frequently has request for of Mendoza’s BIA’s denial no There is previously. times story many request and his withholding of no one quite often it and one to contradict is at the asylum. Since falsi- “likelihood it. Some corroborate General, Attorney discretion of the immi- flutters in the mind meter ty” for the is remanded case portion of the of that if needle gration judge that discretion. exercise position a near vertical reaches meter IN AND REMANDED REVERSED deported. being peril alien is PART. III level. Article process occurs same being used “judges” are sets of Both concurring Judge, SNEED, Circuit in- grossly confronted with administrators specially: by an adver- untested adequate information with a court’s I concur *5 an author- equipped with process and sarial with in dissatisfaction grounded reluctance in life or death literally mean can ity that by Congress its enacted both law frequently are Decisions some instances. circuit. by this application intuition. of untethered on basis made prob- law, “clear the standards to the As need not judges III Obviously Article founded “well persecution” and ability of immigration as do precisely function objec- little too persecution” have fear of rung Occupying higher judges. to enable administrators tive content to be reduced their role could review ladder confidence them with apply courts to by the immi- decisions spotting aberrational to exclude impossible consistency. It is reversing them as not judges and gration legal con- process extra decisional from the evidence. by substantial being supported experiences of the from the cerns derived appeared to charac- consistency long as So her his or forbears. or decision maker be would affirmances the results terize maker’s is the decision excludable Also not proper. of, and condi- history understanding of the Congress did intend likely that very It is in, country of the refu- prevailing tions perform to generally judges III the Article argument that doubt the gee’s origin. No appear circuits some this While in fashion. excluded can be influences should not these function, Ninth Cir- substantially to so difficulty The made some force. respects, not. four cuit does however, encounters, is that argument These are: departs from model. Ninth that administrators strength suggests its quantity heightened the 1. It has rather than decision makers should be the that an evidence substantial quality of function legal system in our judges who relief which denies decision by established applying in facts best Jaw avoid reversal. surmount alien must their role is process which adversarial an testimony of essentially imparted subordinate one. It 2. has increasing de- question an the alien Congress has been to response The point that credibility to the gree of judges and the Bureau immigration create by an finding explicit an mainly Appeals are Immigration a deni- justify incredibility will judge of judicial na- but somewhat administrative asy- deportation withholding al of judges, III who ture, Article review story any case in which lum in out, mainly administrative are, also it turns patently false. is not Obviously the judicial. and somewhat necessity any It has eliminated 3. less admin- should be much viewing judges testimony be corrobo- alien’s very judicial, but that more istrative and evidence. external rated relevant “asy- in the context of difficult to achieve “political neutrality” It treats II. “Incredibility" Requirement. The “opinion” an may for which an alien Although the stricter standard of review “probability” show a or “likelihood” of employed in the Ninth Circuit deter persecution. cases, mine the outcome of some the more apart In each instance we stand from our troubling development doctrinal has been Perhaps sister circuits. the beat of the judicial creation of fictions—all in the drummer to which we march is the correct guise statutory interpretation ac —that one; event, any quite it is different. cord a steadily increasing presumption of I. The Substantial Evidence Standard. verity to aliens’ respect contentions with This circuit makes it easier than each evidentiary “requirement.” An illus argue successfully other for an alien to dynamic tration of this is the movement immigration judge that a decision an toward an “incredibility” requirement. An supported by substantial evidence. alien provide specific must per “ The yielded seed that this fruit was Bolan secution, and ‘mere possible assertions of os-Hernandez Sarvia-Quintanil fear’ are insufficient.” 1282 n. 8 in which this court la v. Cir. began to review denials of of 1985) (quoting Shoaee v. “heightened” under substan (9th Cir.1983)). Lest this bur tial evidence standard. reason offered great, den be too our circuit has deter departure for the was that where issue mined that an alien’s own is con withholding deportation, finding aof trolling supported if “credible by gen “probability” required documentary eral evidence that the threats relief, granting granting whereas the *6 should be considered serious.” Artiga- was a matter within the discre INS, 720, (9th Turcios v. 829 F.2d 723 Attorney tion of the General. Id. and n. 9. Cir.1987); Bolanos-Hernandez, see 767 may Whatever be merits of this distinc F.2d at 1285. tion, “hydraulics” “withholding deportation” “asylum” provisions chary Other circuits have been of accord- reducing dictate that the level of the first ing weight too much to an alien’s own lowering a forces of the second. statements, obvious reason that Other circuits that have articulated ex they See, self-serving. tend to be e.g., plicitly the standard of review follow the Gumbol, (defining per- 815 F.2d at 412 abuse of discretion standard. The Fifth parameters missible under which an alien’s Circuit, example, deference “aecord[s] testimony” “own unsubstantiated will be interpretation immigra to the Board’s accepted); INS, Carvajal-Munoz v. 743 tion compelling statutes unless there are (7th 562, Cir.1984) (permitting F.2d 577 interpretation that indications the Board’s alien’s statements under certain cir- wrong.” Campos-Guardado INS, v. cumstances). 285, (5th Cir.), denied, 809 F.2d 289 cert. By grafting on the statute a doctrinal 826, 92, 484 U.S. 108 S.Ct. 98 L.Ed.2d 53 rule that the INS must make a formal (1987) (citing INS, Guevara Flores v. 786 determination, however, credibility we have 1242, 1250 n. 8 cert. put place requirement in that will fre- denied, 930, 1565, 480 U.S. 107 S.Ct. 94 quently trip up diligent even the most (1987)). L.Ed.2d 757 The same is true for If, adjudicator. us, as in the case before INS, other circuits. See Gumbol v. immigration judge makes no determina- (6th Cir.1987) (applying abuse tion that the alien’s credi- standard); Cruz-Lopez discretion ble, INS, “presume[s] they this circuit (4th Cir.1986) have 802 F.2d (same); (3d petitioner’s testimony found the McLeod v. 802 F.2d credible.” Cir.1986) (same). Thus, Artiga-Turcios, 829 F.2d 723.1 case, (7th Cir.1984). properly Carvajal- 1. In similar the Seventh Circuit 743 F.2d 562 In Munoz, go Carvajal-Munoz “immigration judge refused to far. specif- so made no establishing a realistic objective evidence immigration deportation, an with proceed persecuted that he would likelihood testi- explicitly find judge must Carvajal-Munoz, land”); his native of an ad- The absence mony “incredible.” specific, objective (requiring F.2d at makes such process2 factfinding versarial being sin- alien is particular this facts that showing extremely difficult. persecution). gled out External Corrobora- III. The Erosion our failure illustrates The case before us tion. The letter would require corroboration. evidence, but Men- such perhaps have been requirement A do not it. We produce is unable to doza testimony in- alien’s judge must find the unlikely thus production. It is require its of ex- erosion signals the further credible circuit prevail Mendoza would Al- requirements. ternal corroboration this one. but evi- some “produce alien must though if carried persecution, to show dence this troubling dimension of equally An out, the alien as toward would be directed evidentiary require of external erosion individual,” 775 F.2d Estrada an departure our it ments is that underscores Cir.1985), may alien deference to ad general rule of circuit our produce such evidence The extent to which ministrative decisions. See, e.g., testimony. his own means of disagree appeal circuit courts of the other F.2d at 723. Artiga-Turcios, is well-illustrated court’s approach our Cir of the Eleventh by a recent decision highly subjective, and Such evidence Circuit, court the Ninth cuit. Unlike through lense of the being filtered of the exec deferentially decisions reviews Ac experience, be distorted. it alien’s Perlera-Es field. utive branch every but this one has cordingly, circuit Immigra cobar v. Executive Office for corroborating evidence. required external Cir.1990), tion, See, e.g., Gumbol upheld denying an order recently the court Cir.1987) (finding petitioner’s own because evidence insuffi testimony without more linkage between found no probability clear future cient to show as re “political opinion,” alien’s and the Cruz-Lopez v. persecution); *7 revealing pas In a by the statute. quired Cir.1986) 1518, (following Sev 1520-21 by the striking so sage, made all the more requirement that alien must enth Circuit ap the exposes it between difference more specific facts he “will offer circuits, court the of these two proaches singled persecution”) out for than not be stated: INS, Carvajal-Munoz v. F.2d (quoting made either an ex- Congress has (7th Cir.1984)); Where Farzad v. 562, delegation authori- implicit of (5th Cir.1986) curiam) plicit or an (per in gaps fill the agency to ty to an testimony insuffi (finding petitioner’s own meaning partic- to provide statute and to political of without external evidence

cient statute, give must of a we ular terms showing persecution); dissidence for weight” to the (3d executive “considerable Cir. McLeod See Chevron 1986) “present department’s construction. (requiring to some aliens credibility. credibility.” presumption on a regarding petitioner’s which relies ic statement permitted appears follow the court the alien’s own circuit Ninth Id. at 577. The No other caveats: as evidence with certain statements "Thus, rule. Circuit’s recognizing potential for self- while the context, accept serving we statements in mentioned, immigration system already the 2. As they petitioner’s fac- where establish statements job adversary system. the not an is spec- specificity, with are not tual circumstances ulative, deport every it alien. Nor should be. is not to Rather, petitioner’s with and do not conflict attempt faithfully to the INS should evidenced other evidence.” As the Id. Congress execute the will holding see id. court's of the favor to, of, granting asylum those or signifi- standard is the Seventh Circuit’s who meet criteria. case, cantly holding in this different from the [v. tion [2778] made “may not substitute must process of agency to which Cardoza Natural explicitly, responsibility for U.S. 837 by the BIA. respect at 2781-82 [81 Fonseca, a reasonable filling Resources by Congress,’ L.Ed.2d 434 (1984)] at Congress has ‘any gap 480 U.S. interpretation of the Id.; our L.Ed.2d administering the Defense see also INS interpretation” 843, 104 S.Ct. own construc (1987) left, implicitly 421, 107 S.Ct. the courts 694], We delegated Council, (“in Although political trict court the BIA’s regard it as ment of the BIA’s lied on its own decisions cuit’s belief that circuit political within the Ninth Circuit Maldonado-Cruz has not opinion neutrality F.2d 788 decision, [the] opinion] meaning persuasive and as a state- adopted Maldonado-Cruz political position. has is the Ninth Circuit purposes of the Act. This Cir.1989), been reversed political opinion which hold that the Ninth Cir- neutrality reversing we [dis- Act. still Campos-Guarda 1297 n. statutory program.”); 894 F.2d at Cir. do law, politi- concept As international to the 1987) (“[W]e accord deference developed response cal interpretation Board’s protect persons from need to indi compelling there are unless statutes they per- government because by their interpretation the Board’s cations political opin- political acts held formed BIA’s conclude wrong.”). We of the state. Authorities defiance ions the retribution that neither determination Relating to the interpreting the Convention for hav guerillas fears from Escobar (“Refu- July 1951 Refugees of 28 Status of investigation nor the deserted them ing Convention”), 189 U.N.T.S. gee government will under he fears regard- two different views example, hold might exact punishment take and necessary political ing the nature guer his association because of en- refugee status. Neither qualify for on ac “persecution ... constitutes rillas According neutrality. compasses political is reason political opinion” of ... count Sinha, au- an international S. Prakash able. asylum: thority on omitted). (footnote Id. at 1296-97 the offense the nature of Where mixed, point of view maintains one speak in do not the Ninth Circuit ofWe those applies the Convention tones. those opinion of cases where the na- decisive of involved is individual “Political “Neutrality” as IV. Political ” punishment, severity of ture and Opinion. it is holds that viewpoint while another circuits on also differ other We *8 the of- he has committed sufficient “perse- of what question crucial constitutes opinion. political of his fense because political opin- of ... ... on account cution Interna- Asylum and Sinha, Prakash S. polit- has held that The Ninth Circuit ion.” (1971). Law tional opinion pur- for neutrality political ais ical under- political activism 1153(h). See, idea of e.g., Mal- This core poses of 8 U.S.C. § As “refugee” status. concept of 791 lies donado-Cruz political notes, key element holding This eviscerates Sinha the ref- “rupturpng] of opinion involves the statute. requirement of political opinion him relationship between alien, ugee’s normal politically inactive that a It means turn, re- rupture this In are, his state.” and illegal aliens perhaps most and controversy, which political sults from asylum. Other gain protection now non-submission from his “may arise to this distor- not been blind circuits have rea- political for various government asylum. new purposes of the historical tion of sons, political from acts of the Perlera-Escobar footnote, court state, or from his of his government difference in perceived clear that made Id. at 97. We political offenses.” circuits: these two own legal standard between distort the meaning important of an

quirement refugee for status per- when we

mit aloofness to serve as an active

“political opinion,” endangers its hold-

er. It also martyr demeans the true for

whom was intended.

It is not concurring

will alter either statutory or case law Nonetheless, which it is concerned. sightings time-to-time should be taken position. establish one’s ship ap- Our

pears to be at some distance from the main

fleet but appear no reefs shoals dead passenger,

ahead. As a go I shall below hope for the best. Burd,

William M. Marshack, Burd and Ana, Cal., Santa appellants. for Zahner, Daniel Z. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., Beach, Newport Cal., appellee. NELSON, Before NORRIS and Cuyler WENBERG; In re Neta O’SCANNLAIN, Judges. Circuit Wenberg, Debtors. Cuyler WENBERG; Neta ORDER Wenberg, Appellants, This appeal is an from the decision of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. jurisdiction We have pursuant to 28 U.S.C. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 158(d). § CORPORATION, acting as Bank, Appellee. Receiver of Valencia 4, 1987, February On appellants Cuyler Wenberg Neta petition filed a No. 89-55037. Chapter bankruptcy in the Central Dis- United Appeals, States Court trict date, of California. Prior to that Ninth Circuit. Texas bankruptcy court had entered a judgment in against favor of the FDIC and Argued April Submitted 1990. Wenberg Mr. damages in an amount to May 7, Decided be ascertained for “all costs and attor-

ney’s fees.” The California bankruptcy court held that the attorney’s award of fees liquidated costs was a debt for the purpose of determining eligibility debtor *9 109(e). under 11 U.S.C. The Bankruptcy § Appellate Panel affirmed. In re Wenberg, (Bankr. B.R. 631 9th We AF- FIRM for the reasons stated in the Appellate Bankruptcy Panel.