Yadegar-Sargis, Naza v. INS

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________

No. 01-3693

NAZANI YADEGAR-SARGIS,

Petitioner,

v.

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

____________

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A71-849-557

____________

ARGUED JUNE 3, 2002—DECIDED JULY 22, 2002

____________

Before BAUER, RIPPLE and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Nazani Yadegar-Sargis, an Iranian,

overstayed her visitor’s visa, and, consequently, the INS in-

stituted deportation proceedings against her. Ms. Sargis

conceded deportability but sought asylum and withhold-

ing of deportation. After a hearing, the Immigration Judge

(“IJ”) issued a ruling in which he denied asylum and with-

holding of deportation but granted Ms. Sargis voluntary

departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or

“Board”) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Ms. Sargis now seeks

further review in this court. For the reasons given in the

following opinion, we must deny the petition and affirm the

decision of the Board.

2 No. 01-3693

I

BACKGROUND

A.

We begin by setting forth the basic facts from the adminis-

1

trative record before us. Ms. Sargis is a seventy-one year

1

During oral argument before this court, counsel for Ms. Sargis

recounted additional facts that, upon study of the administrative

record, we find not to have been part of the administrative record.

For instance, counsel stated that revolutionary guards were stationed

not only outside the church, but also inside the church to oversee the

services. However, neither Ms. Sargis nor her niece testified that

guards were inside the church building. Additionally, counsel stated

that guards watched women while in the church to make sure they

did not remove their head covering—even momentarily—to receive

a blessing from the priest. Again, however, there was no testimony

that the guards engaged in such activity. With respect to the ration-

ing of food, counsel stated that Ms. Sargis was forced to go to a

mosque to receive her ration coupons. The testimony in the record

was that government agents took the coupons at the stores and did

not stop store owners from forcing Armenians to the back of the line

(and may have done this themselves as well). There is no testimony

in the record concerning where Ms. Sargis obtained the ration cou-

pons. Finally, we understood counsel to say that there was a govern-

ment-sanctioned hierarchy of punishment for failing to adhere to the

Islamic dress code: For the first offense, the offender would be spray

painted and for the second offense, the offender would be sprayed

with acid. The testimony from Ms. Sargis’ niece was that “Hezbollah

radicals” would administer this punishment indiscriminately;

“[s]ometimes it wasn’t a paint. Sometimes it was chemical like acid.”

A.R.51-52.

We do not mean to impugn, in any way, counsel’s integrity by

pointing out these discrepancies. It may well be that, from sources

outside the administrative record, counsel has learned of these facts.

Nevertheless, we are bound by the administrative record and cannot

consider matters not before the IJ or the BIA. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft,

(continued...)

No. 01-3693 3

old native and citizen of Iran. An Armenian Christian, she

first began to experience difficulties in Iran when the

Ayatollah Khomeini came to power. According to Ms.

Sargis, the new government forced her husband to retire

from his job solely because he was Armenian. He found

another job with a foreign construction company; however,

that company eventually shut down. Ms. Sargis testified

that her husband was unable to find other work because

he was Armenian and Christian. The government, how-

ever, did give Ms. Sargis’ husband his pension.

At the time that the Ayatollah overthrew the Shah,

many Armenian schools were closed. Those that remained

open were forced to teach Islam and to accept Moslem

students. At that time, Ms. Sargis and her husband sent

their only child, a son, to live in Italy where he could study

in an Armenian school and would not have to learn the

Islamic faith.

After Ms. Sargis and her husband sent their son abroad,

government soldiers came to their home in Tehran looking

for him. Several times government agents interrogated her

2

and her husband and took her husband to the Komiteh

for further questioning. Ms. Sargis believes that these

intrusions aggravated her husband’s heart condition—

a condition of which the agents were aware. Ms. Sargis’

husband died from his heart condition in 1988, and the

government stopped sending agents to her home after his

1

(...continued)

257 F.3d 1262, 1278 & n.5 (7th Cir. 2001) (stating that the general rule

“that the court may not go outside the administrative record” applies

to “transitional aliens”—those placed in deportation proceedings

before April 1, 1997).

2

From the record, it appears that the Komiteh is a religious or rev-

olutionary tribunal. See A.R.52, 70.

4 No. 01-3693

death. After her husband’s death, Ms. Sargis did continue to

receive his pension.

Ms. Sargis stated that she suffered other hardships be-

cause she was Armenian. Specifically, she had difficulty

obtaining food. After waiting hours in food rationing lines,

she often was forced to the end of the line or told there was

nothing for her because she was Armenian. When fellow

Armenians objected to this treatment, they were beaten or

told to leave the country. Ms. Sargis was forced to change

her diet and obtain food through the black market because

of these actions.

Ms. Sargis also was forced to wear the Islamic garb. Twice

she was approached by the police and was cited for not

following the Islamic dress code. Her niece, who lived with

Ms. Sargis at the time, was spray painted by Islamic ex-

tremists when she went out in public without her scarf to

3

cover her face. Although Ms. Sargis opposed the dress

code, after this incident she complied out of fear for her

safety.

Ms. Sargis also testified that government agents were

stationed at the front gates of her church and hassled young

girls and women as they entered church; specifically, they

would “complain about your hair or something.” A.R.82.

When the women came out of church, government agents

sometimes would take the women for questioning and

“if you have a cross . . . on you, and they’ll just grab the

cross and throw it or something.” Id.

After Ms. Sargis’ husband died, she left Iran and entered

the United States as a visitor for pleasure on August 30,

3

Ms. Sargis’ niece also testified that sometimes women who went

out without their faces covered were sprayed with acid and women

who wore lipstick often would have their lips rubbed with pieces of

glass.

No. 01-3693 5

1991. She has remained in the United States since that time

and has resided with her niece outside Chicago.

Ms. Sargis’ son now lives in Italy. She has one sister and

two nieces who reside in Chicago. She no longer has rela-

tives residing in Iran.

B.

Ms. Sargis was placed in deportation proceedings on July

2, 1993. At the hearing before the IJ, Ms. Sargis and her

niece testified to the facts we have set forth. After hearing

the testimony and reviewing the submitted documentation,

the IJ denied Ms. Sargis’ application for asylum.

The IJ characterized Ms. Sargis’ claims as based on her

religion and her gender:

The respondent’s contention is that she has a gender-

based claim, namely, she felt compelled to wear an

Islamic or Moslem dress, the hedjab, because she feared

the consequences if she did not, that wearing this

dress was contrary to her religious beliefs and prac-

tices, particularly to her Armenian Christian faith, and

as a result of this compulsion by the state and by society

she was denied the free practice of her religion.

A.R.34. The IJ further noted that “[t]he respondent in fact

did wear the dress. She was never harmed on any occasion

because of what she wore. She was never arrested or im-

prisoned or even harassed by non-governmental authorities

at any time. She did attend church.” Id. at 35. Consequently,

the IJ concluded that Ms. Sargis’ experiences did not rise

to the level of persecution. The IJ, however, did grant

Ms. Sargis voluntary departure.

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s opinion in its entirety. The BIA

characterized Ms. Sargis’ claim as persecution “by funda-

6 No. 01-3693

mentalist Muslims in Iran due to her religious beliefs as a

Christian Armenian, and due to her refusal to comply with

the traditional Muslim dress code.” A.R.2. The BIA first

evaluated Ms. Sargis’ claims of past persecution. The BIA

characterized persecution as an “extreme concept” and

stated that Ms. Sargis’ experiences in Iran did not rise to

this level. Id. at 3. In making its determination, the BIA

acknowledged that Ms. Sargis had been forced to wear the

Muslim garb for fear of being attacked, that she had suf-

fered discrimination with respect to food rationing be-

cause she was Armenian, and that her son was forced to

go abroad to study his native language and culture. Al-

though “deplorable,” these incidents constituted harass-

ment, not persecution. Id.

The BIA also found that Ms. Sargis had not established a

well-founded fear of future persecution. Again, the BIA ac-

knowledged harassment and discrimination by the Iranian

government against Christians, but held that it did not rise

to the level of persecution. The BIA similarly rejected Ms.

Sargis’ argument that she would suffer persecution on ac-

count of her membership in a social group “consisting of

Christian women who fear the threat of persecution for

failing to conform to the dress code imposed by Islamic

laws.” Id. The BIA acknowledged that the women who

shared this plight may qualify as a particular social group

for the purposes of asylum law:

To the degree that the respondent and other women in

her proposed group oppose the dress code because they

feel it is an imposition of the Islamic religion on them,

we would find the members of this group should not be

required to change their opposition because it is funda-

mental to their individual identities or consciences.

Id. The BIA nevertheless rejected Ms. Sargis’ argument that

she would suffer persecution because of her membership in

this group:

No. 01-3693 7

[W]e note that the respondent always complied with the

dress code while living in Iran, and she has indicated

that, if returned to Iran, she would continue to conform

to the dress code. Despite the Islamic dress code, the

respondent continued to practice her Christian religion

in Iran. The respondent has not testified that she will

willingly oppose the Islamic law by refusing to wear the

required clothing. Thus, we do not accept that the re-

spondent’s actions reflect that her opposition to the

Islamic law is fundamental to her individual identity or

conscience. Therefore, the respondent has not estab-

lished her membership in the particular social group.

Id. Ms. Sargis timely sought relief from this court.

II

DISCUSSION

A.

“Asylum eligibility ‘is a factual determination which we

review under the substantial evidence test.’ ” Petrovic v. INS,

198 F.3d 1034, 1037 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sivaainkaran v.

INS, 972 F.2d 161, 163 (7th Cir. 1992)). “We shall disturb

the BIA’s findings ‘only if the record lacks substantial evi-

dence to support its factual conclusions.’ ” Ambati v. Reno,

233 F.3d 1054, 1059 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Malek v. INS, 198

F.3d 1016, 1021 (7th Cir. 2000)). This court may not reverse

the BIA’s determination simply because it would have de-

cided the case differently. See Anton v. INS, 50 F.3d 469, 472

(7th Cir. 1995).

Congress has given the Attorney General discretion to

grant asylum if an applicant qualifies as a refugee under

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The Immigration and Nationality

Act (“INA”) defines “refugee” as

8 No. 01-3693

any person who is outside any country of such person’s

nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to return

to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself

of the protection of, that country because of persecution

or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social

group, or political opinion . . . .

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).

In order to qualify as a refugee, the asylum applicant

must establish that he has a well-founded fear of future

persecution based on one of the statutorily protected cat-

egories. An alien may establish fear of future persecution

in one of two ways. See Marquez v. INS, 105 F.3d 374, 379

(7th Cir. 1997). First, he may establish that he endured past

persecution. See id. If he meets this requirement, there is

a rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear of

future persecution and therefore should be granted asylum.

See Asani v. INS, 154 F.3d 719, 722 (7th Cir. 1998). Alterna-

tively, the asylum applicant may come forward with evi-

dence that he will endure persecution if returned to his

country of origin. See Marquez, 105 F.3d at 379.

B.

We first address whether the record supports the determi-

nation that Ms. Sargis has failed to establish that she has

suffered past persecution on account of her Armenian eth-

nicity and her religious affiliation.

In this regard, Ms. Sargis points to the fact that, when she

lived in Iran, she was forced to the end of food rationing

lines, that guards were posted at her church and harassed

women as they came in (and took some for questioning

when they departed) and that she was forced, under threat

of imprisonment or bodily harm, to wear the Islamic garb.

No. 01-3693 9

Although “persecution encompasses more than threats

to life or freedom,” Tamas-Mercea v. Reno, 222 F.3d 417, 424

(7th Cir. 2000), such actions must “rise above the level of

mere ‘harassment’ to constitute persecution,” Sofinet v. INS,

196 F.3d 742, 746 (7th Cir. 1999). “Types of actions that

might cross the line from harassment to persecution include:

‘detention, arrest, interrogation, prosecution, imprisonment,

illegal searches, confiscation of property, surveillance, beat-

ings, or torture.’ ” Begzatowski v. INS, 278 F.3d 665, 669 (7th

Cir. 2002) (quoting Mitev v. INS, 67 F.3d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir.

1995)).

Ms. Sargis undoubtedly has endured harassment and

hardship in Iran on the basis of her ethnicity and religious

affiliation. She has been confronted by police because her

dress did not conform to the requirements imposed by the

dominant religion, interrogated concerning her son and

forced to the end of rationing lines. However, Ms. Sargis

never was detained; she was not physically assaulted; she

did not suffer extreme economic deprivation; nor was she

the direct subject of a physical threat. We must conclude

that, under our precedent, the evidence of record does not

compel a finding of persecution. See Begzatowski, 278 F.3d at

670 (holding that being repeatedly forced into life-threaten-

ing situations constituted persecution); Asani, 154 F.3d at

725 (stating that “it is likely that the events described by

Asani—being beaten resulting in the loss of two teeth,

deprived of food and water, detained in a cell with no room

to sit, and chained to a radiator—are sufficiently serious to

4

rise beyond the level of mere harassment”).

4

Ms. Sargis seems to fault the BIA for failing to consider the

subjective component of establishing a well-founded fear of persecu-

tion and failing to balance the subjective and objective components

(continued...)

10 No. 01-3693

C.

Ms. Sargis also submits that the BIA erred in determining

that she did not have a well-founded fear of persecution

based on her membership in a particular social group—

Christian women who oppose wearing the Islamic garb.

She asserts that, if returned to Iran, she will suffer persecu-

tion on the basis of her membership in this group.

This court has held that “[t]o qualify for asylum based on

group membership, an alien must: 1) identify a particular

social group; 2) establish that she is a member of that group;

and, 3) establish that her well-founded fear of persecution

is based on her membership in that group.” Sharif v. INS, 87

F.3d 932, 936 (7th Cir. 1996). The common characteristic that

defines the social group “must be one that the members

of the group either cannot change, or should not be required

to change because it is fundamental to their individual

identities or consciences.” Lwin v. INS, 144 F.3d 505, 512

(7th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citations omit-

ted).

Evaluating the evidence according to the standards set

forth above, Ms. Sargis’ first burden is to identify a particu-

4

(...continued)

of that requirement. This court has stated: “To establish a well-

founded fear of persecution, an applicant must show both that he

genuinely fears being persecuted and that his fear is objectively

reasonable.” Bereza v. INS, 115 F.3d 468, 472 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations

omitted). Neither the IJ nor the BIA doubted the veracity of Ms.

Sargis’ statements or the basis for her fears; instead, both the IJ and

the BIA focused on the nature of the actions that caused her fear and

determined that those actions did not constitute persecution under

the statute. The fact that the IJ and the BIA failed to dwell on the

subjective component—after finding that the objective component

was not met—was not error.

No. 01-3693 11

lar social group. With respect to this element, we believe

that Ms. Sargis has met her burden. Ms. Sargis identified

in her brief the group of Christian women in Iran who do

not wish to adhere to the Islamic female dress code. This

group is virtually indistinguishable from social groups

recognized by other circuits. See Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233

5

(3d Cir. 1993); Safaie v. INS, 25 F.3d 636 (8th Cir. 1994).

5

In Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993), the petitioner had left

Iran prior to the Shah’s downfall in 1978. She overstayed her student

visa, and the INS began deportation proceedings. In those proceed-

ings, Fatin claimed that she was entitled to asylum because she

would be persecuted upon her return to Iran on the basis of her

membership in the social group of “Iranian women who refuse to

conform to the government’s gender specific laws and social norms.”

Fatin, 12 F.3d at 1241. The court determined that the “particular

social group” limited in this way,

may well satisfy the BIA’s definition of that concept, for if a

woman’s opposition to the Iranian laws in question is so

profound that she would choose to suffer the severe conse-

quences of noncompliance, her beliefs may well be characterized

as so fundamental to [her] identity or conscience that [they]

ought not be required to be changed.

Id. (quoting Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 234 (BIA 1985)).

However, the Third Circuit found that Fatin did not fall within the

social group she had defined. Fatin had based her claim primarily on

the Islamic dress requirements. “[B]ut,” continued the court, “the

most that the petitioner’s testimony showed was that she would find

that requirement objectionable and would seek to avoid compliance

if possible.” Id. Fatin never testified that she would refuse to comply

with the requirements or that wearing the chador was “so deeply

abhorrent to her that it would be tantamount to persecution”; she

testified “only that she ‘would try to avoid’ wearing a chador as

much as she could.” Id. The court concluded that “[t]his testimony

does not bring her within the particular social group that she has

defined—Iranian women who refuse to conform with those require-

ments even if the consequences may be severe.” Id.

(continued...)

12 No. 01-3693

5

(...continued)

The Third Circuit also considered whether Fatin’s testimony

placed her within another “particular social group”—“consisting

of Iranian women who find their country’s gender-specific laws

offensive and do not wish to comply with them”—for which she

would be persecuted if she returned to Iran. Id. The Third Circuit

determined, however, that even if the group was broadened in this

way, Fatin still could not meet the requirements for asylum because

she could not show that “the consequences that would befall her

as a member of that group would constitute ‘persecution.’ ” Id. at

1241-42. The court explained that Fatin “would have two options

if she returned to Iran: comply with the Iranian laws or suffer se-

vere consequences.” Id. at 1242. The court agreed that the conse-

quences of noncompliance would constitute persecution; however,

it also had to consider whether the alternative “—compliance—

would also constitute persecution.” Id. In considering this option, the

Third Circuit accepted the fact that persecution could “include

governmental measures that compel an individual to engage in

conduct that is not physically painful or harmful but is abhorrent

to that individual’s deepest beliefs,” such as forcing an individual

to renounce her religious beliefs or to desecrate an important

religious object. Id. These government actions, the court stated,

would constitute torture only “if directed against a person who

actually possessed the religious beliefs or attached religious impor-

tance to the object in question.” Id. The evidence, however, estab-

lished that, although Fatin found the clothing requirements objec-

tionable, they were not “so profoundly abhorrent [to her] that

[they] could aptly be called persecution.” Id. Consequently, the court

determined that the petitioner did not qualify for asylum based

on her membership in a social group.

The Eighth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in Safaie v. INS,

25 F.3d 636 (8th Cir. 1994). In that case, the petitioner asserted that

she was entitled to asylum on the basis of her belonging to the

particular social group “defined as those Iranian women who

advocate women’s rights or who oppose Iranian customs relating to

dress and behavior.” Id. at 640. Following the Third Circuit, the court

acknowledged that a group of women “who refuse to conform and

(continued...)

No. 01-3693 13

Ms. Sargis also meets the second requirement—she falls

6

within this particular social group. Furthermore, the con-

sequences of failing to comply with the dress code—beat-

ings, imprisonment, and being physically abused (such as

having your lips rubbed with glass) clearly constitute per-

secution under the INA.

Nevertheless, we cannot say that the record before us

conclusively establishes that Ms. Sargis has been persecuted

on the basis of her inclusion within this group; certainly,

the determination of the Board to the contrary cannot be

characterized as unsupported by the record. In order for

Ms. Sargis to qualify as a refugee, she also has to establish

5

(...continued)

whose opposition is so profound that they would choose to suffer the

severe consequences of noncompliance” would fit the definition of

a particular social group. Id. However, the court ultimately rejected

the asylum claim because, although the petitioner had taken “some

affirmative steps to articulate her opposition,” the court could not

say that requiring the petitioner to comply with the “gender-specific

laws would be so profoundly abhorrent that it could aptly be called

persecution.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The language employed by our colleagues in the other circuits,

although perhaps quite appropriate for the fact situations before

them, raises a significant ambiguity when taken out of its immediate

context. Although it would seem appropriate to require that the

government-imposed requirement be one that affects a deeply held

belief, it is unclear to us why the victims must be willing to suffer

whatever consequence may be visited on them as a prerequisite to

claiming persecution. The law does not impose an absolute require-

ment that one be willing to suffer martyrdom to be eligible for

asylum.

6

Ms. Sargis would not fall within the narrower category of women

who refuse to wear the Islamic garb; she has complied with this

requirement and has indicated that she will continue to comply with

this requirement if returned to Iran.

14 No. 01-3693

that complying with the dress code would, for her, rise

to the level of persecution. See Fatin, 12 F.3d at 1242. When

asked whether she objected to wearing the Islamic dress,

Ms. Sargis replied that “[t]his is not our Armenian culture,

its not our dress. We don’t . . . we don’t dress this kind of

things.” A.R.83. When asked whether she considered it a

religious practice, she responded that “[w]hen they want us

to wear the same thing that . . . as the religion wants . . .

wants them to do, it’s kind of forcing you to accept their

religious . . . .” Id. Finally, in response to the question from

her counsel whether she felt “that the dress code infringed

on [her] religious practice?” A.R.85, Ms. Sargis responded,

“Yes, its against my religion. I think that they tried slowly

to take . . . to change us into Islam religion.” Id. at 86.

However, Ms. Sargis also testified that she complied with

the dress code, id. at 91, and, because of her compliance, she

was not stopped from attending church, id.

We do not believe that Ms. Sargis’ testimony compelled a

finding by the Board that complying with the Islamic dress

requirements would constitute persecution for her. First,

when asked why she objected to the dress, her first response

was that it was not her culture. Second, although she tes-

tified that she believed that the dress code was a way to

force Christians to conform to Islam, she did not testify that

it violated a specific tenet of her faith. Finally, Ms. Sargis

had complied with the dress code while she lived in Iran

and, as long as she did so, was not prevented from attend-

ing church and practicing her faith. Consequently, because

the evidence could be interpreted such that the dress re-

quirements are not “abhorrent to [Ms. Sargis’] deepest

beliefs,” Fatin, 12 F.3d at 1242, we cannot say that the BIA’s

determination to deny asylum on this basis is without

support in the record.

We faced a similar, although not identical, claim of

persecution based on social group membership in Sharif,

No. 01-3693 15

87 F.3d 932. In Sharif, the petitioner claimed that she would

be persecuted upon her return to Iran on the basis of her

status as a “westernized woman.” Id. at 934. We accepted

for the sake of argument that “westernized women” consti-

tuted a cognizable social group. However, the court deter-

mined that

Sharif is still unable to demonstrate a reasonable fear of

persecution because of her membership in that group.

There is no evidence to suggest that Sharif is either un-

able or unwilling to comply with Iranian law when she

returns to Iran. Sharif has no history of objecting to

Iran’s social code. Nor is there any evidence to suggest

that Sharif will voice her opposition to Iranian law

when she returns.

Id. at 936. The court therefore concluded that “Sharif’s

inability to enjoy the freedoms enjoyed by American women

does not equate with a threat of affirmative persecution by

the Iranian regime based on Sharif’s ‘pro-western views.’ ”

7

Id.

7

In a slightly different context, an en banc Ninth Circuit reached a

similar conclusion. In Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1996) (en

banc), a native and citizen of Iran claimed that, if she were returned

to Iran, she would suffer persecution on account of her political

beliefs—specifically her opposition to the Islamic dress code for

women. The Ninth Circuit rejected this claim because Fisher could

not establish that the Iranian government’s “ ‘potential act of per-

secution stemmed from its desire to single [her] out for unique

punishment because of [her] actually-held or perceived-to-be-held

political or religious beliefs.’ ” Id. at 962 (quoting Abedini v. INS, 971

F.2d 188, 192 n.1 (9th Cir. 1992)). According to the court,

Fisher failed to show that Iran punished her because of her

religious or political beliefs, or that, if she returned to Iran, she

would violate the regulations because of her beliefs, thereby

(continued...)

16 No. 01-3693

D.

We are constrained to point out an additional matter that

immigration authorities ought to consider before deporting

Ms. Sargis to Iran. We take note of the very significant delay

that this case experienced during the administrative proc-

ess. Deportation proceedings first were instituted against

Ms. Sargis in 1993. Today, almost a decade later, at the age

of seventy-one, she faces deportation to a country in which,

according to the record, she has no close relatives. Although

we are bound by the record to sustain the Board’s determi-

nation that Ms. Sargis will not be subject to persecution on

the basis of her religion or social group, the practical reality

is that, given her age and her attempt to remain in the

United States, she cannot expect a warm welcome or a very

easy life. In fact she probably can expect, given her age,

a very hard life. Inasmuch as the difficulties that she prob-

7

(...continued)

triggering government action. No evidence suggests that Fisher

ever spoke out against the government’s political or religious

practices or even publicly articulated any political or religious

opinions. Although she stated that she is against the Khomeini

regime and disagrees with its theory of Islam, she introduced no

evidence suggesting that the three incidents she described were

related to these beliefs.

There also is no evidence suggesting that if she returned to

Iran, Fisher would not conform with the regulations. Indeed, she

testified that the veil incident occurred because she mistakenly

left several strands of hair outside her veil, not because she

intended to make a political or religious statement.

Id. at 962-63 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Consequently, because Fisher’s compliance with the dress code did

not implicate a fundamental belief and because Fisher had complied

with the code in the past, compliance did not rise to the level of

persecution.

No. 01-3693 17

ably will endure are age-related, the INS must bear sig-

nificant responsibility for the situation. To the extent that

there exist further steps that may permit this applicant to

avoid these difficulties, it is, we respectfully suggest, the

responsibility of immigration officials to give them very

serious consideration.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we must deny

the petition for review and affirm the decision of the Board.

AFFIRMED

A true Copy:

Teste:

_____________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

USCA-97-C-006—7-22-02