Last Updated: Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 16:06 GMT

Daneshmand v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Publisher United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Publication Date 18 October 1993
Citation / Document Symbol 7 F.3d 1044
Reference 92-9568
Cite as Daneshmand v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 7 F.3d 1044, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 18 October 1993, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b6624.html [accessed 22 October 2014]
Comments Filed: 18 October, 1993; Decision without published opinion.
DisclaimerThis is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

MOHAMMAD TAGHI DANESHMAND, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION &
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 92-9568 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
October 18, 1993, Filed

Prior History:

BIA No. A24-889-967. Petition for Review

Disposition:

The petition for review is DENIED, and the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is AFFIRMED.

Judges:

Before SEYMOUR and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, ** District Judge.

** Honorable Ralph G. Thompson, District Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.

Opinion By:

ENTERED FOR THE COURT; STEPHANIE K. SEYMOUR

Opinion:

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This is a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ordering petitioner's deportation and dismissing his appeal from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) finding him deportable and denying his request for asylum and withholding of deportation. We exercise jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a, and affirm.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Iran, entered the United States illegally from Mexico in July 1983, and was found by the IJ to be deportable on that basis. The IJ also denied petitioner's applications for political asylum and withholding of deportation, which were based on petitioner's asserted fear of persecution from the current government of Iran because of his former employment in the Royal Horse Society, an elite horse-riding club owned and administered by the former Shah. On appeal, petitioner argues he presented sufficient evidence to show both a well-founded fear of persecution and a clear probability of persecution, and he should be granted asylum and withholding of deportation.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an otherwise deportable alien who fears that he or she will be persecuted if deported can obtain relief either through asylum or withholding of deportation. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 423 (1987). In order to obtain a grant of asylum, the alien must establish refugee status by proving "either past 'persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.'" Kapcia v. INS, 944 F.2d 702, 706 (10th Cir. 1991)(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)). To be eligible for withholding of deportation, the alien must demonstrate with "'objective evidence that it is more likely than not that he or she will be subject to persecution upon deportation.'" Id. at 709 (quoting Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 430)).

The BIA found that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution upon his return to Iran. This determination will be upheld unless petitioner's evidence was so compelling that "a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815 and n.1 (1992). We review the record to see if subjectively petitioner has established a genuine fear and if objectively he has shown his fear is well-founded. Kapcia, 944 F.2d at 706. A well-founded fear of persecution involves more than restrictions or threats to life and liberty. Baka v. INS, 963 F.2d 1376, 1379 (10th Cir. 1992). Based on our careful review of the record, we hold that petitioner has failed to make the requisite showing.

Because petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, it follows that he also failed to establish the higher "clear probability of persecution" standard required for withholding of deportation. See Kapcia, 944 F.2d at 709.

The petition for review is DENIED, and the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court Stephanie K. Seymour Circuit Judge

Search Refworld