Vivian C. ARUTA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent

80 F.3d 1389 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2441 , 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4113 Vivian C. ARUTA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 93-70981. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 15, 1995. Decided April 10, 1996. Joshua R. Floum, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, San Francisco, California; Margaret R. O'Donnell, Mill Valley, California, for the petitioner. Alexander H. Shapiro and Nelda C. Reyna, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals; INS No. Ayt-psq-czm. Before: HUG, Chief Judge, ALARCON, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. TROTT, Circuit Judge: 1 Vivian Calabio Aruta, a national and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeal ("BIA") decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. The BIA determined that her alleged fear of persecution was not objectively reasonable, and alternatively that she failed to demonstrate a threat of countrywide persecution. 2 We have jurisdiction over this timely petition pursuant to 8…

Vivian Calabio Aruta, a national and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeal (“BIA”) decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. The BIA determined that her alleged fear of persecution was not objectively reasonable, and alternatively that she failed to demonstrate a threat of countrywide persecution.

*1391 We have jurisdiction over this timely petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. We deny the petition in its entirety.

I. BACKGROUND

A.

Ms. Aruta entered the United States in February, 1985 on a tourist visa, which she subsequently overstayed. In July, 1988, on her own initiative, she applied for asylum. Two months later, the District Director at the San Francisco Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) denied her application. The INS commenced deportation proceedings in October, 1988 during which Ms. Aruta resubmitted her application for asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a), along with applications (1) for withholding of deportation as to the Philippines, 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (h), and (2) for voluntary departure, 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (e).

She bases her claim of asylum on an alleged fear of future persecution at…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

The focus of this appeal is on the question of whether Vivian Aruta’s fear of persecution is objectively reasonable, so as to qualify her for asylum. The BIA did not question her credibility or the genuineness of her subjective fear. On the basis of the very strong evidence presented from Aruta’s family and knowledgable persons from the Philippines and experts on the Philippines, regarding the likelihood of persecution, it cannot be said that the fear she has is objectively unreasonable.

The BIA decision to deny Aruta asylum was also made on the grounds that she failed to demonstrate a country-wide threat. This court recently found that the existence of a threat of country-wide persecution is not required for determining eligibility for asylum or withholding of deportation. Singh v. Ilchert, 69 F.3d 375, 380 (9th Cir.1995). Because the BIA decision rested in part on impermissible grounds, the only issue remaining is the reasonableness of Ms. Aruta’s fear.

I.

The facts stated by the majority reveal a good part of the reason for her fear. I add some other pertinent facts:

In addition to threats against her own family, Aruta testified to…