Persecution Case Analysis

Listen to this article

The decision does not necessarily mean that either of the immigrants will actually obtain withholding of removal. However, some of the court’s language is so strong as to suggest that it may be a foregone conclusion.

For example, while the court states it is for the IJ to decide whether, if Niam is returned to Sudan, he will be tortured until he confesses to spying, and killed, the manner in which it is stated implies that the IJ had better so find.

The case is also noteworthy as the first asylum case the Seventh Circuit has ever decided involving Sudan. The decision contains numerous cites documenting atrocities in Sudan, and should serve as a blueprint for any attorney seeking asylum for future Sudanese dissidents.

The Blagoev case, on the other hand, is remarkable for just the opposite reason — the Seventh Circuit has reviewed requests of Bulgarian dissidents on numerous occasions, and invariably upheld the BIA’s refusal to withhold removal.

The court acknowledged that it has, in previous cases, spoken favorably of the political changes in Bulgaria since the collapse of the communist regime, citing Toptchev v. INS, 295 F.3d 714, 723 (7th Cir.2002), Gramatikov v. INS, 128 F.3d 619 (7th Cir.1997), and Mitev v. INS, 67 F.3d 1325, 1332 (7th Cir.1995).

In truth, the court vastly understates its previous position, for the cases it cites are only those published in the official reports. Many more unpublished decisions echo that favorable assessment of Bulgaria’s progress.

The only difference between Blagoev’s case and the others is the testimony of the expert witness that the IJ refused to consider.

	Links 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Related Article 7th Circuit vacates deportations to Bulgaria

In Toptchev, for example, the applicant claimed persecution at least as severe as that alleged by Blagoev. Toptchev, 295 F.3d at 716-717. Yet the denial of his application was affirmed, with the court holding, “In the absence of evidence calling the State Department’s opinion into question, we have no reason to question the judge’s reliance on it. Id., at 722.

In the case at bar, the opinion of the State Department was called into question. As with Niam, the evidence presented by Blagoev should provide a blueprint for future asylum seekers.

It should be noted, however, that Bulgarian immigration cases generally fall into one of two categories: anticommunists; and Bulgarians of Macedonian dissent. If a member of the latter group is seeking asylum, the evidence of continued persecution presented by Blagoev may need to be supplemented.

– David Ziemer

Click here for Main Story.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.