Assadi, et al v. Gonzales, et al
Filing
920060327
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
F I L E D
March 27, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 05-60035 Summary Calendar ALIREZA ASSADI; MEHRNOOSH SABETI SANAT, Petitioners, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA Nos. A95-607-024 & A95-607-025 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Alireza Assadi and his wife, Mehrnoosh Sabeti Sanat, both citizens of Iran proceeding pro se, petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their requests for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They argue that the physical mistreatment
Assadi received during his 1986 and 1997 incarcerations in Iran following
*
his
engagement
in
anti-government
demonstrations
Pursuant to the 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
constitute past persecution based on his political opinion and torture sufficient to render them eligible for the requested relief. To the extent that the BIA adopted the findings and
opinion of the immigration judge (IJ),1 we review the IJ and BIA's decision to determine whether substantial evidence supports the rulings.2 Under the substantial evidence standard of review, we
may not reverse a factual determination unless we find that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.3 Withholding of removal requires the petitioner to demonstrate a "clear probability" of persecution if repatriated.4 If Assadi
establishes that he suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground, it is presumed that his life or freedom would be threatened in the future.5 Additionally Assadi need not provide
evidence that he would be singled out individually for future
The BIA dismissed in part and sustained in part, stating: "...we find that the factual findings of the Immigration Judge are not clearly erroneous, and, in conjunction with our observations, we adopt and affirm the immigration Judge's decision." Reversing the IJ, the BIA granted petitioner's request for voluntary departure.
1
Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 353 (5th Cir. 2002). Chun, 40 F.3d at 78; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (stating that "findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary..."). Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b) (noting that an alien must show that "his life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country or removal on account of race, religion nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion")).
5 4 3
2
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i).
2
persecution if he demonstrates both a pattern or practice of persecution of a similarly situated class of people in Iran and his inclusion in that group.6 The petitioners challenge as unsupported by the evidence the BIA's determination that Assadi did not need medical treatment upon his release from prison and, therefore, that his physical
mistreatment while incarcerated did not rise to the level of past persecution.7 We hold that the BIA could reasonablely draw the
inference from the testimony of both Assadi and Sanat that Assadi did not seek medical care because he did not need such treatment. Moreover, the petitioners' argument that the Iranian government engages in a pattern or practice of persecution against persons similarly situated to Assadi is conclusory, devoid of reference to specific evidence in the record.8 Assadi lived in Iran for the ten years in between his two terms of imprisonment, both the consequence of a mass arrest. He
6
Id. at (b)(2)(ii).
The IJ credited Assadi's testimony. He was detained for 45 and 40 days during which time he was denied counsel, beaten, denied water, struck with an electric baton, and one of his fingers was broken. He was released from the second term of imprisonment only after singing a statement in which he agreed not to participate in any more demonstrations and to pay a $13,000 fine. Assadi argues that his Uncle's death and that of his "mates" demonstrates a probability of persecution, but he does not establish the cause of death or any connection between his political views and that of his uncle. Moreover, petitioners children and Assadi's parents live in Iran; no evidence suggests that they have been persecuted.
8
7
3
had
no
affiliation
with
the
second
protest,
in
which
he
participated on impulse. his freedom to is travel
He maintained employment and exercised outside by of the country. evidence The and BIA's the
determination
supported
substantial
petitioners, therefore, have not established that the evidence compels a conclusion of eligibility for withholding of removal. Similarly, the evidence does not compel a conclusion that Assadi is entitled to relief under the CAT. differ from those need for not withholding one of of Claims based on CAT removal five because the
mistreatment
involve
the
impermissible
categories and since proof of torture, rather than persecution, is required.9 In order to obtain relief, a petitioner must show that
it is "more likely than not" that he would be tortured if removed.10 Assuming that the physical abuse he suffered rises to the level of torture, Assadi was incarcerated only as a result of his
participation in two isolated acts of civil disobedience and otherwise Substantial lived without incident the in the ten-year decision, interim. and we,
evidence
supports
BIA's
therefore, are not compelled to find that it is more likely than not that Assadi would be tortured if removed. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
9
Efe, 293 F.3d at 906. Ontunez-Tursios, 303 F.3d at 353 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)).
10
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?