H-B-, AXXX XXX 608 (BIA July 26, 2016)
H-B-, AXXX XXX 608 (BIA July 26, 2016)
H-B-, AXXX XXX 608 (BIA July 26, 2016)
Department of Justice
Name:B_H_
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
DQnltL CtVvu
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Pauley, Roger
Greer, Anne J.
Wendtland, Linda S.
Userteam: Docket
Polanco, Carlos M.
Polanco Law Group
2521 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2330
Atlanta, GA 30324
,
U.S. Department of Justice
Date:
JUL 2 6 2016
In re:H-
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPO:t-H)ENT: Carlos M. Polanco, Esquire
CHARGE:
Notice: Sec.
212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)] Immigrant - no valid immigrant visa or entry document
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
608
The respondent maintains on appeal that the Immigration Judge erred as a matter of law in
determining that he did not suffer harm sufficiently severe to rise to the level of past persecution
(Resp. Brief at 24-27). Up9n de novo review, we disagree with the Immigration Judge that,
notwithstanding the respondent's credible testimony, he did not carry his burden of proof to
establish that the past mistreatment he experienced was sufficiently severe to qualify as
persecution (I.J. at 18).
Past persecution is an extreme concept and does not include every form of mistreatment that
our society regards as offensive. See Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1355 (11th Cir. 2000);
see also Shi v. United States Attorney General, 707 F.3d 1231,1236 (11th Cir. 2013). Although
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the jurisdiction in which this case
arises, does not impose a rigid definition for persecution, it defines harm rising to that level as
"requir[ing] ... more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation,
unaccompanied by any physical punishment, infliction of harm, or significant deprivation of
liberty." See Gonzalez v. Reno, supra, at 1355; see also Shiv. United States Attorney General,
supra, at 1235; Sepulveda v. United States Attorney General, 401 F.3d 1226, 1231
(11th Cir. 2005). When considering whether past persecution has been established, we are
required to examine the cumulative effects of any alleged mistreatment. See Delgado
v. United States Attorney General, 487 F.3d 855, 861 (11th Cir. 2007), citing Ruiz v. Gonzales,
479 F.3d 762, 766 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Mejia v. United States Attorney General,
498 F.3d 1253, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2007).
We conclude, when considering the treatment cumulatively, that the respondent's encounters
with AL members were pervasive enough and accompanied by sufficiently severe harm to
qualify as persecution. Moreover, as noted above, t..'1e. Immigration Judge determined that the
harm endured was on account of the respondent's political opinion (I.J. at 17).
Where the respondent expresses fear of harm from private actors, he must also establish that
the government is unable or unwilling to protect him from these individuals (I.J. at 18, 19). See
Malu v. United States Attorney General, 764 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2014); Ayala v. United
States Attorney General, 605 F.3d 941, 950 (11th Cir. 201 O); Lopez v. United States Attorney
General, 504 F.3d 1341, 1345 (11th Cir. 2007); Matter ofAcosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211,222 (BIA
1985). Merely alleging goverrunent inaction is not enough; the respondent must show that the
government condoned the private conduct or at least demonstrated a complete helplessness or
unwillingness to protect the victim. The respondent testified that his father was advised by local
BNP leaders not to report the incident to the police as doing so would be futile or lead to adverse
consequences (Tr. at 382-84; Respondent's Brief at 32). This is supported by the country
conditions evidence of record, specifically the Bangladesh 2014 Human Rights Report (Country
2
Cite as: H-B-, AXXX XXX 608 (BIA July 26, 2016)
experienced rose to the level akin to persecution, the respondent failed to demonstrate that he
was persecuted by the government- of Bangladesh or persons the government of Bangladesh is
unable or unwilling to control (I.J. at 18,19; Matter ofA-M-, 23 I&N Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005).
The Immigration Judge found that the respondent's belief that the police would not be responsive
does not convincingly demonstrate that the Bangladeshi government in general cannot and will
not control the violence against the respondent perpetrated by members of the AL's student wing
(I.J. at 19).
608
3
Cite as: H-B-, AXXX XXX 608 (BIA July 26, 2016)
Report), which indicates that political violence is widespread, there were reports that the
government (which is controlled by the Awami League) or its agents committed arbitrary or
unlawful killings, that official corruption and impunity remained a problem, and tat no cases
involving security force abuse and killing resulted in criminal punishment (Respondent's Brief at
32; Exh. 2, Tab 9). Given the documented politically motivated violence in .the country
condition evidence together with the respondent's testimony that local BNP leaders advised his
father not to report the abuse, we onclude that the Immigration Judge's finding that the
government of Bangladesh is willing or able to control the respondent's persecutors is clearly
erroneous.