Antonio Lee v. Eric Holder, Jr.

MEMORANDUM **

Antonio T.V. Lee petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an order of removal. Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lee’s political opinion was not a central reason for his persecution, we deny the petition.

Lee asserted that he was persecuted on account of political opinion because he exposed police corruption in a civil lawsuit. The BIA did not deny that Lee might have had a political opinion, but it concluded that “the record does not support a finding that the respondent’s political opinion (whether imputed or direct) or any other protected ground was at least one central reason behind the incidents at issue.” Under the REAL ID Act, Lee was required to demonstrate that his political opinion was “at least one central reason” behind the persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(l)(B)(i) (2006). Our precedent based on the statute prior to its amendment by the REAL ID Act, including cases cited by Lee, has been superseded. Instead, Lee had to meet the standard of showing that his persecutors “would not have harmed the applicant if the protected trait did not exist.” Matter of N-M-, 25…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I respectfully dissent from the denial of the petition with respect to Lee’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. *660 Neither the immigration judge (IJ) nor the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had the benefit of the recent precedential BIA decision in Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526 (June 9, 2011), when they held that the persecution that Lee suffered at the hands of the local police force was not on account of his political opinion.

Matter of N-M- discusses the heightened nexus requirement imposed by the REAL ID Act, Pub.L. No. 109-18, Div. B., § 101(h)(2), 119 Stat. 231 , 305 (May 11, 2005), and its application in asylum and withholding of removal cases where the basis for the protected activity is whistle-blowing against corrupt government officials. The majority is correct that under the REAL ID Act’s “one central reason” standard, the “alien must demonstrate that the persecutor would not have harmed the applicant if the protected trait did not exist.” Matter of N-M- 25 I. & N. Dec. at 531 .

Matter of N-M- provides more, however. The opinion provides three factors for an IJ to consider when determining, as a matter…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 30 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO TIMOTHY VASCONC LEE; No. 10-71265

FERNANDA LEE; KEREN HAPPUCH

M. VASC LEE; BEN HUR M. Agency Nos. A099-776-787

VASCONCE LEE, A099-776-788

A099-776-789

Petitioners, A099-776-790

v.

MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 16, 2011** Portland, Oregon

Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Antonio T. V. Lee petitions for review of the decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an order of removal. Because

substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination…