Maryam Hartooni v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Opinion by Judge PREGERSON; Dissent by Judge O’SCANNLAIN.

I.INTRODUCTION

Appellant, Maryam Hartooni, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction under § 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Ms. Hartooni makes two claims of error. First, she claims that she was denied due process of law because her interpreter was incompetent. Second, she contends that the Board misapplied the criteria for eligibility for asylum to the facts of her case. We affirm on the first issue, and remand to the Board on the second.

II.FACTS

Maryam Hartooni is a citizen of Iran and a practicing Armenian Christian. She accompanied her parents to the United States in August of 1984 after allegedly experiencing several disturbing incidents at the hands of the authorities in Iran. She entered this country on a three-month visitor’s visa. Two months later her parents returned to Iran, but she remained behind after submitting an application for asylum.

Her asylum application mentioned no specific instances of persecution. She checked the “No” box in response to question 38 on…

dissenting:

While I believe that this is a close case, especially given the majority’s admission that doubts have been raised about the petitioner’s credibility, Majority Opinion at 343,1 am persuaded that the immigration judge (“U”) made implicit findings concerning the petitioner’s credibility. Because these findings are entitled to “considerable deference,” DeValle v. INS, 901 F.2d 787, 792 (9th Cir.1990), I would affirm the BIA’s decision that Ms. Hartooni does not qualify for asylum.

The majority maintains that the IJ did not make findings on the credibility of Ms. Har- *344 tooni’s claims because he did not “make, findings of fact regarding which, if any, of her specific claims were questionable.”- Majority Opinion at 342. However, the IJ did state, after a detailed exposition of Ms. Hartooni’s allegations of persecution, that “[t]he cumulative effect of the respondent’s testimony and application therefore leads me to conclude that the respondent has not established a credible claim to persecution.” IJ Opinion at 8-9. This conclusion establishes that the IJ did not find credible the petitioner’s claim of fear of persecution based on the facts of her story. It is evident…

21 F.3d 336 Maryam HARTOONI, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 92-70613. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 9, 1994. Decided April 7, 1994. Ronald S. Sugarman, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner. Karen A. Hunold, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Before: PREGERSON, O'SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge PREGERSON; Dissent by Judge O'SCANNLAIN. PREGERSON, Circuit Judge: I. INTRODUCTION 1 Appellant, Maryam Hartooni, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction under Sec. 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1105a(a). Ms. Hartooni makes two claims of error. First, she claims that she was denied due process of law because her interpreter was incompetent. Second, she contends that the Board misapplied the criteria for eligibility for asylum to the facts of her case. We affirm on the first issue, and remand to the Board on the second. II. FACTS 2 Maryam Hartooni is a…