Barzola Becerra v. Mukasey

First Circuit

Barzola Becerra v. Mukasey

323 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedApril 23, 2009

Docket08-1908

StatusPublished

This text of 323 F. App'x 1 (Barzola Becerra v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barzola Becerra v. Mukasey, 323 F. App'x 1 (1st Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners Miguel Alfredo Barzola Be-cerra (“Barzola”), his wife and their two children are natives and citizens of Peru. They applied for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied the requests, and an appeal was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Petitioners alleged that they had been and would be subject to persecution and torture in Peru by the Shining Path — a guerrilla group designat *2 ed by the State Department as a terrorist organization — which had issued threats against Barzola and his family.

To qualify for protection under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an asylum seeker must show that he cannot return to his home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). As used in the statute, “persecution ‘always implies some connection to government action or inaction’ ” Nikijuluw v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 115, 120-21 (1st Cir.2005) (quoting Harutyunyan v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 64, 68 (1st Cir.2005)), so asylum may be granted only when the applicant “suffers persecution that is the direct result of government action, government-supported action, or government’s unwillingness or inability to control private conduct.” Nikijuluw, 427 F.3d at 121.

Here, the IJ and BIA found that while the incidents in question were frightening, there was no evidence that the government was or is unable or unwilling to provide protection for those who, like the Barzola family, face threats from the Shining Path; nor was any government involvement in the threats alleged. There is no suggestion here that the IJ and BIA determinations were not supported by substantial evidence, see Oliva-Muralles v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 25, 27 (1st Cir.2003), and accordingly the decisions below must be sustained.

The petition for review is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners Miguel Alfredo Barzola Be-cerra (“Barzola”), his wife and their two children are natives and citizens of Peru. They applied for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied the requests, and an appeal was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Petitioners alleged that they had been and would be subject to persecution and torture in Peru by the Shining Path — a guerrilla group designat *2 ed by the State Department as a terrorist organization — which had issued threats against Barzola and his family.

To qualify for protection under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an asylum seeker must show that he cannot return to his home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). As used in the statute, “persecution ‘always implies some connection to government action or inaction’ ” Nikijuluw v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 115, 120-21 (1st Cir.2005) (quoting Harutyunyan v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 64, 68 (1st Cir.2005)), so asylum may be granted only when the applicant “suffers persecution that is the direct result of government action, government-supported action, or government’s unwillingness or inability to control private conduct.” Nikijuluw, 427 F.3d at 121.

Here, the IJ and BIA found that while the incidents in question were frightening, there was no evidence that the government was or is unable or unwilling to provide protection for those who, like the Barzola family, face threats from the Shining Path; nor was any government involvement in the threats alleged. There is no suggestion here that the IJ and BIA determinations were not supported by substantial evidence, see Oliva-Muralles v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 25, 27 (1st Cir.2003), and accordingly the decisions below must be sustained.

The petition for review is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barzola-becerra-v-mukasey-ca1-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack