Plesea

Plesea v. Holder

Good Law
356 F. App'x 19
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 13, 200905-73300California876 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Viorel Plesea, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the determinations of an immigration judge (“IJ”) that Plesea is ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Plesea’s wife, Claudia Plesea, also seeks status as a derivative beneficiary.

The IJ determined that Plesea was not statutorily eligible for asylum because he failed to show that his application was filed within one year of his entry into the United States and because he failed to rebut the presumption that he had firmly resettled in Italy before coming to the United States. The IJ then found that, even if the timeliness and firm resettlement bars did not apply, Plesea failed to meet his evidentiary burden of proving persecution. The IJ determined that Plesea had failed to testify credibly, but went on to conclude that, even if Plesea was credible, his testimony did not establish that he had suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. Finally, the IJ denied Plesea’s applications for withholding of removal and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.