Immigration – Persecution – Coptic Christian

Listen to this article

Where the Board of Immigration Appeals has upheld an immigration judge’s ruling adverse to an Egyptian national, the BIA ruling should be affirmed given a lack of evidence of persecution based on religion.

“The harms described here are disagreeable but not shocking. Being taunted, being cut by a bottle, being detained overnight on a single occasion, and being subjected to threats are unpleasant experiences, but determining whether described harms rise to the level of persecution is, except in clear cases, a judgment call — and is committed to agency discretion. We have upheld agency determinations that harms considerably more egregious than those described by [Mourcous Morgan] Morgan failed to rise to the level of persecution. …

“Except for Morgan’s single arrest and overnight detention at the hands of the police, Morgan’s tormentors were all private citizens. None of them had any apparent connection to the government. In addition, the police reports that are in evidence reveal that the authorities took reported incidents seriously and acted appropriately with respect to the information that they received. These actions included visiting the suspects’ residences and leaving summonses there. This evidence, combined with the absence of any official complicity in the alleged mistreatment, constitutes substantial evidence of the lack of a government nexus. …

“… After all, there is no real proof in the record that ties any of the alleged persecution to religious animus; and an alien’s speculation or conjecture, unsupported by hard evidence, cannot compel a finding of the necessary link between alleged persecution and a statutorily protected ground. …

“To sum up, we do not question the genuineness of Morgan’s fears. Yet it is firmly established that personal animosity, no matter how real, does not suffice to justify a grant of asylum. … Even crediting Morgan’s factual testimony, the record in this case supports at least three inferences on which a denial of asylum can rest. Here, ‘the IJ’s choice between those inferences is, a fortiori, supported by substantial evidence.’ … Consequently, substantial evidence undergirds the agency’s finding that Morgan did not carry his burden of showing a well-founded fear of persecution.”

Morgan v. Holder (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-036-11) (17 pages) (Selya, J.) (1st Circuit) On petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Docket No. 09-2632) (Feb. 11, 2011).

Click here for the full-text opinion.