David L. Cleveland on Sok v. Mukasey, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10903 (1st Cir. May 22, 2008): "Mere" threats could be grounds for asylum
Do "mere" threats constitute persecution for an asylum applicant? In addressing this question, David L. Cleveland, an attorney at Catholic Charities Washington DC, discusses Sok v. Mukasey, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10903 (1st Cir. May 22, 2008), where the First Circuit remanded an asylum case in part because the analysis of the immigration judge (IJ) and of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was too cursory and in part because the reality of death threats was wrongly discounted. Moreover, Mr. Cleveland offers suggestions on how to take advantage of Sok's pro-immigrant language. He writes:
Sopheap Sok, from Cambodia, was an active member of an opposition political party, first known as the “KNP,” later the “SRP.” Her husband was also active. They suffered six incidents over four years: (1) they received a letter threatening them with a “big problem” if they continued to support the opposition; (2) graffiti was painted on their house, stating that their lives “would not be easy” if they continued; (3) a police officer visited the home and threatened them with death if they continued; (4) she witnessed an anti-government protest where she was beaten unconscious and jailed for three days; (5) while she was riding a motorcycle with her husband, two men stopped the cycle, then punched and threatened her husband; (6) police searched her house at gunpoint, and told her that anyone who acts against the government party “will be in trouble.”
. . . .
[In denying Sok’s asylum claim] [t]he IJ summarized her past harm as having been taken into custody “only” once, and has [sic] having “received threats.” The IJ did not believe . . . [her] husband had been murdered because there was no death certificate, police report, or newspaper article. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed this decision, stating that “one arrest and several threats[,] without more, is not deemed to rise to the level of persecution.”
On appeal, the First Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the BIA and IJ had given a legally insufficient explanation.
Where the agency decision “fails to state with sufficient particularity and clarity the reasons for denial,” the case must be remanded. Here, the IJ “seems to have ignored certain pieces of critical evidence.” Sok was beaten unconscious, and threatened twice, face-to-face, by soldiers with guns. Yet the IJ ignored or discounted these events. “While the IJ need not address each and every piece of evidence put forth by a petitioner, he must at least make findings, implicitly if not explicitly, on all grounds necessary for decision.”
The IJ dismissed the incidents as “mere” threats. The First Circuit, however, has “never suggested that threats cannot constitute persecution. On the contrary, we have often acknowledged that credible threats can, depending on the circumstances, amount to persecution, especially when the assailant threatens the petitioner with death, in person, and with a weapon.”
(footnotes omitted)
Subscribers to www.Lexis.com may purchase this entire expert commentary here.