Unpublished Disposition, 899 F.2d 19 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 899 F.2d 19 (9th Cir. 1990)

Norma PEREZ-SOLIS, Petitioner,v.IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 89-70102.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 16, 1990.* Decided March 21, 1990.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING, ALARCON and POOLE, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Norma Perez-Solis, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) order affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of her request for asylum or prohibition of deportation. Perez-Solis contends that she established a well-founded fear of persecution based on her political opinion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We affirm.

We review the factual findings underlying the BIA's decision under the "substantial evidence" test. Arteaga v. INS, 836 F.2d 1227, 1228 (9th Cir. 1988). We review questions of law, such as whether the BIA applied the appropriate legal standard, de novo. Id.

In 1978 Perez-Solis suffered a gunshot wound when a police officer shot into a crowd which was demonstrating in front of Perez-Solis's workplace. Perez-Solis was not a participant in the demonstration, nor was she part of the crowd. Perez-Solis contends that this injury constituted persecution for her political opinion. She also claims that because of her ex-husband's political activities in Guatemala she has a reasonable fear of persecution for political opinion should she return to that country.

Perez-Solis argues that the doctrine of transferred intent should apply in this case. This argument lacks merit. In determining whether persecution for political opinion exists, we examine the motives and perspective of both the victim and the persecutor. Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir. 1988). "Persecution" only occurs where oppression is inflicted because of a difference that the persecutor will not tolerate. Hernandez-Ortiz v. INS, 777 F.2d 509, 516 (9th Cir. 1985). To hold that persecution has occurred where a police officer accidentally shoots an innocent bystander near a demonstration would contradict the established rule that generalized conditions of violence in a country do not give rise to a claim of persecution. See Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463, 1467 (9th Cir. 1986); Martinez-Romero v. INS, 692 F.2d 595, 596 (9th Cir. 1982).

Perez-Solis was not "singled out for persecution." See Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1574 (9th Cir. 1986). Rather, she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Such an incident does not constitute persecution for political opinion. Id. at 1581. Therefore, the BIA's determination that Perez-Solis's gunshot wound did not constitute persecution for political opinion is supported by substantial evidence.

The BIA's determination that Perez-Solis failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Guatemala likewise is supported by substantial evidence. To establish a well-founded fear of persecution Perez-Solis must show that persecution is a "reasonable possibility." See Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723, 726 (9th Cir. 1988). Perez-Solis's claim that the government could learn of her ex-husband's activities, attribute his views to her, and then persecute her for them is too attenuated to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See id.

Further, the BIA applied the correct legal standards in determining that Perez-Solis failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. A statement by the BIA that an alien must demonstrate a well-founded fear that she would be persecuted is not improper especially where, as in the instant case, the BIA's opinion clearly shows that the BIA applied the appropriate legal standard. See Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1579 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Florez-De Solis v. INS, 796 F.2d 330, 336 (9th Cir. 1986) (Wallace, J., concurring)). Moreover, the BIA did not improperly rely on the fact that Perez-Solis is politically inactive, does not share her husband's views, and is not perceived by the Guatemalan government as sharing those views. As noted above, these factors combined indicate that Perez-Solis does not have a well-founded fear of persecution.

Finally, because Perez-Solis failed to meet the more lenient standard for asylum, she necessarily also failed to meet the standard for prohibition of deportation. See Diaz-Escobar v. INS, 782 F.2d 1488, 1491 (9th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Perez-Solis's request for oral argument is denied

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.