Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 08-1390
YOLEX PIERRE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,* ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
Harvey J. Bazile and Bazile & Associates on brief for
petitioner.
Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, and Gregory G.
Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, on brief for
respondent.
March 26, 2009
*
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric
H. Holder, Jr. has been substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent.
Per Curiam. Yolex Pierre is a citizen of Haiti who
entered the United States without inspection through St. Thomas,
Virgin Islands, around July 5, 2004. On July 19, 2004, Pierre
filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), alleging that
his life was in jeopardy because of his father's membership in the
Lavalas party, a political group formed by former Haitian President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In November 2004, the Department of
Homeland Security rejected Pierre's application for asylum and
denied any other relief.1
An immigration judge (“IJ”) held a hearing on July 13,
2006, at which Pierre testified that in February 2004, when
Aristide was ousted illegally by the principal opposing party,
members of that party then sought out Lavalas members and their
families, that in the same month his father had been kidnapped by
bandits, the bandits had been masked but that (in Pierre's view)
they came from the opposing party, that his father had never been
seen again and was thought to be dead, and that Pierre himself hid
in fear and eventually fled to the United States.
Despite some discrepancies, the IJ credited Pierre's
factual testimony but noted that he had no evidence that the
kidnappers were from the opposing party or that the kidnapping was
1
The requirements for withholding of removal and for relief
under CAT are, in general, more demanding than for asylum.
Pierre's brief focuses on the asylum claim and so do we.
-2-
politically motivated, that Pierre himself was not politically
involved and had never been personally threatened or attacked, and
that Pierre's siblings had remained in Haiti without incident. The
IJ denied relief, finding that Pierre had not shown an objectively
reasonable fear of persecution on account of one of the statutorily
listed bases.2
The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed, and
Pierre now petitions for review by this court. Pierre's central
claim on judicial review is that an objective basis for fear was
established, and wrongly ignored by the IJ and BIA, based on State
Department country reports that anti-Aristide forces are targeting
Lavalas party members and their families. Our review is
deferential: the denial must "must be upheld if 'supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.'" INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4)).
Although Pierre said that he sometimes drove his father
to political meetings and might himself have been kidnapped with
his father if he had not fled, there is no concrete evidence that
Pierre was the subject of the attack or that he was or is targeted
2
Pierre had the burden to show that he either suffered past
persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution "on
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” Nikijuluw v. Gonzales, 427
F.3d 115, 120 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A),
1158(b)(1)(B)(i)).
-3-
because of his father's activities. His father was an active
member of the party but is not claimed to have been a major figure.
Pierre's brother and sister reside in Haiti unharmed.
The State Department report reprinted in Pierre's brief
indicates that political violence did ensue after Aristide's ouster
and included kidnappings, both political and for ransom, but there
is no indication in the report that families of Aristide supporters
were or are systematically targeted. So even if Pierre's fear is
subjectively genuine, the report does not furnish a solid objective
basis for this fear and the IJ was entitled to disregard it.
The petition for review is denied.
-4-