03-1393, 03-1394 & 03-1395 Mamedov v. Ashcroft

Listen to this article

“There are other strange gaps in the immigration judge’s opinion, as when it states that Mamedov ‘claims that the attackers asked [him] his name, [but] this does not seem reasonable given the fact that they never said anything else to him, and proceeded to attack him.’ We cannot begin to understand the basis for such a judgment. And what was the immigration judge thinking when he said that ‘if, in this case, [Mamedov’s] father was a Turkmen and [Mamedov] also was considered a Turkmen by nationality, it appears that discrimination that [Mamedov] received in the past was not as significant as he claims’? If Mamedov’s coworkers, employers, and the police knew he was Jewish by religion and hated him for it, how would his or his father’s nationality make discrimination against him on account of his religion less ‘significant’? It’s like saying that a Jew in Nazi Germany was okay as long as he was of German nationality.

“The immigration judge said that even if all the evidence presented by the petitioners were believed, they had not demonstrated either that they had been persecuted or that they would be persecuted if they were sent back to their country of origin. The judge gave no reason for this alternative holding, however, and the case is not so clear cut that the omission can be overlooked. Being excluded from all employment (as opposed to discriminatory exclusion from some jobs), and being beaten by the police to boot, could amount to persecution. Borca v. INS, 77 F.3d 210, 215-17 (7th Cir. 1996); Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2004).”

Vacated and Remanded.

On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Posner, J.