Eric Blanco-Comarribas v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

830 F.2d 1039 Eric BLANCO-COMARRIBAS, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 86-7467. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 1, 1987. Decided Oct. 20, 1987. Rosemary J. Esparza, El Centro, Cal., Charles C. Jackson, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Mark C. Walters, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Before HUG, BOOCHEVER and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge: 1 Eric Blanco-Comarribas petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his applications for withholding of deportation and asylum. He asserts that the evidence he presented meets both the clear probability and the well-founded fear of persecution standards under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Secs. 1158 (a), 1253(h) (1982). We hold that Blanco-Comarribas failed to meet the clear probability standard but satisfied the more liberal well-founded fear of persecution standard. DISCUSSION WITHHOLDING OF DEPORTATION 2 Blanco-Comarribas contends that the BIA erred in refusing to grant a withholding of deportation under section 243(h) of…

Eric Blanco-Comarribas petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his applications for withholding of deportation and asylum. He asserts that the evidence he presented meets both the clear probability and the well-founded fear of persecution standards under the Immigration and Nationality Act, *1041 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 (a), 1253(h) (1982). We hold that Blanco-Comarribas failed to meet the clear probability standard but satisfied the more liberal well-founded fear of persecution standard.

DISCUSSION

WITHHOLDING OF DEPORTATION

Blanco-Comarribas contends that the BIA erred in refusing to grant a withholding of deportation under section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 243(h) of the Act prohibits the Attorney General from deporting any alien to a country that threatens the alien’s life or freedom “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (h). We will uphold the BIA’s decision denying a withholding of deportation if that decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Platero-Cortez v. INS, 804 F.2d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1986); Bolanos-Hemandez v.…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority that Blanco-Comarribas is not entitled to withholding of deportation. I dissent from that part of the majority opinion finding Blanco-Comarribas had a well-founded fear of persecution. Were I reviewing the evidence de novo, I might well agree. But we “must apply a deferential standard of substantial evidence to the BIA’s conclusions based *1044 upon the evidence in the record. Consequently, ‘we may not reverse the BIA simply because we disagree with its evaluation of the facts, but only if we conclude that the BIA’s evaluation is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” Sanckez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1579 (9th Cir.1986) (quoting Diaz-Escobar v. INS, 782 F.2d 1488, 1493 (9th Cir.1986)). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Blanco-Comarribas failed to show a reasonable possibility “that potential persecution would be directed at him as an individual, and that it would be politically motivated.” Rebollo-Jovel v. INS, 794 F.2d 441, 448 (9th Cir.1986) (citations omitted).

Blanco-Comarribas points to his father’s probable death at the hands of the Government as a specific reason for his…