recognizing that “[m]ere generalized lawlessness and violence” without a particularized risk to the petitioner is generally insufficient to support a claim of asylum
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “[m]ere generalized lawlessness and violence” without a particularized risk to the petitioner is generally insufficient to support a claim of asylum
- "Because the administrative authorities determined that the ... persecution was [based] solely [on non-political grounds], in the absence of evidence that compels a contrary conclusion I must consider this to be a case involving solely non-politically motivated persecution, rather than [a] mixed-motive persecution [case.]" (emphasis added)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BRUNETTI, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur only in the result reached by Judge Wiggins because an implicit credibility finding is not necessary for the resolution of this case.
We review the BIA’s conclusion that Sebastian “failed to meet his burden of proof to establish his eligibility for asylum” for substantial evidence. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir.1998). Under this standard of review, we must determine whether the evidence viewed as a whole compels the conclusion that the harm the guerillas inflicted upon Sebastian was motivated by an imputed political opinion. See Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc); Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995). The evidence in this case-Sebastian’s testimony-viewed as a whole does not compel the conclusion that the guerillas actions were motivated by an imputed political opinion because all of the evidence demonstrates that the guerillas were motivated exclusively by a desire to coerce Sebastian into their ranks.
Prior to 1990, the guerillas ignored Sebastian because he was too young to join their forces. In 1990, however, after Sebastian reached the age of sixteen, the guerillas no longer ignored Sebastian and •initiated attempts to coerce him into their forces. The impetus of the guerillas’ persecution was, therefore, the desire to recruit Sebastian. The guerillas came to Sebastian’s village regularly after 1990 seeking food, money, and new recruits and Sebastian would either hide from the guerillas or be beaten and threatened for not joining the guerillas. The guerillas continued to threaten and beat Sebastian periodically for four years as they attempted to force him into them ranks. In 1994, Sebastian’s younger brother was conscripted into military service for the government and after that occurred the guerillas commented on one occasion that Sebastian had the same attitude as his brother. Thus, on one occasion in four years, the guerillas did mention a political opinion when they harassed Sebastian, but that does not demonstrate that any of the attacks on Sebastian were actually motivated in part by an imputed political opinion. The evidence, examined as a whole, therefore, demonstrates that the guerillas were continuously and exclusively motivated by a desire to recruit Sebastian rather than by a political opinion they imputed to him and that, in and of itself, is not sufficient to warrant a discretionary grant of asylum. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-83 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).
Sebastian’s testimony regarding why he left Guatemala and why he does not want to return further supports the conclusion that the guerillas were motivated exclusively by a desire to recruit Sebastian rather than by an imputed political opinion. Sebastian left Guatemala the day af *515 ter his last beating because he did not want to join the guerillas and because he only had three days to join the guerillas or leave Guatemala. Sebastian did not, therefore, leave Guatemala because he feared future persecution on account of his brother’s military service. He testified that he could not move to another region of Guatemala because the guerillas would find him and his refusal to join the guerillas (not his brother’s military service) put his life in jeopardy. Sebastian also testified that he was afraid to return to Guatemala because he ignored the guerillas ultimatum by leaving Guatemala rather than joining their forces. Sebastian’s fear of persecution, therefore, stems not from an imputed political opinion based on his brother’s military service but from a fear of forced recruitment.
Because the evidence in this case viewed as a whole does not compel the conclusion that the guerillas actions were ever motivated by an imputed political opinion, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision and Sebastian’s petition for review must be denied. I, therefore, concur in the result reached by Judge Wiggins.