Unpublished Disposition, 905 F.2d 1541 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Juan Francisco Ramirez-Sanchez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) judgment affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. He argues that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard and that its decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We deny the petition.

Ramirez-Sanchez is a twenty-seven year old native and citizen of El Salvador. In 1983 he was issued a passport, traveled through Guatamala and Mexico and entered the United States without inspection in April. In May of 1983, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) instituted deportation proceedings against him, charging him with illegal entry without inspection. See 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2) (1982). He conceded deportability but applied for withholding of deportation, asylum, and, in the alternative, voluntary departure.

In his testimony before the IJ, Ramirez-Sanchez contended that he feared persecution by the Salvadoran government. For a number of years prior to his departure from El Salvador, he had been detained by security forces and asked to show identification. He testified that he was detained and questioned because of his age and the area in which he lived. He was never arrested by the security forces nor forced to join the military.

During this time, Ramirez-Sanchez also participated in a few demonstrations against the government, attended the meetings of two leftist political groups, and engaged in weapons training. Ramirez-Sanchez was most active in these groups from 1979-80. He claims that his neighbors are employed in administrative positions with the security forces and the police, and he fears that they have reported his political activities and views to the El Salvador government. Ramirez-Sanchez further testified that many of his friends were arrested and never reappeared. His older brother, who, to Ramirez-Sanchez's knowledge, was not involved in political activities, received a death threat indicating that he should leave the country. His other five brothers, however, were never threatened, nor were his elderly parents. His family remains safely in El Salvador.

The IJ determined that there was no evidence that Ramirez-Sanchez "was ever identified by the government of El Salvador as having anything to do with the guerrillas or with those organizations in sympathy with the guerrillas" and, therefore, he did not have a "well-founded fear" of persecution. He concluded that Ramirez-Sanchez was deportable as charged. The IJ did not make specific findings as to the credibility of Ramirez-Sanchez's testimony. In a per curiam opinion, the BIA agreed that Ramirez-Sanchez failed to establish a "well-founded fear" of persecution because there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Salvadoran government was aware of his political opinion or of his membership in opposition groups.

Ramirez-Sanchez claims that both the IJ and the BIA applied the more stringent clear probability standard, which is applicable only to withholding of deportation claims, to his asylum request and failed to take into account the subjective elements of his fear of persecution. Because we find that the BIA applied the correct legal standard, we need not scrutinize the IJ's opinion. See Canas-Segovia v. INS, No. 88-7444, slip op. 3431, 3438 (9th Cir. April 24, 1990).

Section 208(a) of the Refugee Act of 1980, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (1982), gives the IJ discretion to grant asylum to aliens who qualify as refugees. A "refugee" is an alien who is unwilling or unable to return to his or her former 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). "A 'well-founded' fear is a fear that is both genuine and objectively reasonable. To be objectively reasonable, there must be some reasonable possibility of persecution on one of the five statutorily-impermissible bases, but persecution does not have to be more likely than not." Ramirez Rivas v. INS, 899 F.2d 864, 866 (9th Cir. 1990).

In evaluating whether the BIA applied the correct legal standard, this court looks to the entire opinion and not simply to whether the BIA used "certain magic words." Rodriguez-Rivera v. INS, 848 F.2d 998, 1004 (9th Cir. 1988). The BIA's opinion does not commit any of the errors that this court has held to require a finding that an improper legal analysis was employed. First, the BIA separated its discussion of Ramirez-Sanchez's asylum and withholding of deportation claims. In its discussion of the former, the BIA stated that the applicant must establish a "well-founded fear" of persecution. In addition to correctly citing the Supreme Court's decision in Cardoza-Fonseca v. INS, 480 U.S. 421, 449-50 (1987), the BIA evaluated the evidence under this standard. The BIA did not evaluate the evidence to determine the "likelihood" of persecution if the petitioner returns to El Salvador. See Arteaga v. INS, 836 F.2d 1227, 1230 (9th Cir. 1988). Rather, it addressed Ramirez-Sanchez's subjective fears of persecution to determine if they were reasonable. The BIA specifically found that his fear that neighbors would report his leftist political activities to the government was "speculative." The BIA also addressed Ramirez-Sanchez's fears stemming from the government's detaining him on the streets to question his military status. We cannot conclude that because the BIA did not address each piece of evidence specifically that it failed to consider all of the evidence in reaching its decision.

Ramirez-Sanchez argues that even if the BIA did apply the correct "well-founded fear" standard there was insufficient evidence to support its denial of asylum. We disagree. Ramirez-Sanchez has failed to satisfy the objective component of the well-founded fear standard.

The BIA's finding that Ramirez-Sanchez's fear of persecution was unreasonable is supported by substantial evidence. There is no evidence that the government is aware of his political opinions. His family still resides peacefully in El Salvador, he left the country with a valid passport, he was not visibly politically active just prior to his departure, and he has never been arrested by the government.¹  While these factors may not be sufficient on their own, together they support the BIA's holding. See Rodriguez-Rivera, 848 F.2d at 1006 (evidence of family's present situation and issuance of a passport are relevant evidence).² 

Because Ramirez-Sanchez has failed to meet the less stringent standard of proof for asylum, a fortiori he has failed to satisfy the higher burden of proof required for withholding of deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1982); Diaz-Escobar v. INS, 782 F.2d 1488, 1492 (9th Cir. 1986).

PETITION DENIED.