Sunday, June 05, 2005

More non-precedential asylum denials by the Third Circuit

In Manan v. Gonzales (Manan v. Attorney General), No. 04-2430 (3d Cir. May 13, 2005) (not precedential): affirmed denial of Asylum for someone of Pashtun ethnicity in Afghanistan. The immigrant convinced the immigration judge that he has faced persecution in Kandahar (where he is from) at the hands of the Taliban. The BIA reversed and denied asylum, though, because it concluded that there is no evidence that Pashtuns who are the majority in Kandahar experienced persecution in Kandahar.

In Yang v. Gonzales, No. 04-1682 (3d Cir. May 16, 2005) (not precedential): this emphasizes the need to find a professional to help fill out an asylum application. In that case, the immigration judge found the immigrant to be not credible based on, among other things, how there was a discrepancy between the testimony and what was written in the asylum application. For example, he testified he only saw the doctor who gave an IUD to his wife just once, when he had written that he had seen the doctor twice. He testified he was out farming when officials forcibly took his wife to have an abortion, but his statement said he was at home at the time. These may sound like insignifcant discrepancies, but they can be enough to lose an asylum case and make it impossible to win on appeal.

Go v. Dept Homeland, 05/16/05, No. 04-2961 (3d Cir. )(not precedential): affirming a denial of CAT (convention against torture) protection. Even if the immigrant was the victim of street crime on the basis of racial discrimination, that is not enough to qualify for CAT relief, which the courts will only grant to more extreme acts. The immigrants were from Indonesia and were discriminated against because of their Chinese heritage.

Fei v. Atty Gen USA, 05/16/05, No. 04-3407 (3d Cir.) (not precedential): the immigrant from China lost his bid for asylum because the law does not grant protection to unmarried boyfriends of those who suffer forced abortions. Apparently, the courts will grant asylum protection to husbands but not boyfriends of those who suffer forced abortions. Next, although he showed he was detained by China the last time they caught him, he could not prove it was based on political opinion as opposed to a neutral desire to punish those who leave China without permission.


Post a Comment

<< Home