Alireza Rabie Jahed Maryam Feizi Labon Rabie Jahed Tansagol Rabie Jahed v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

356 F.3d 991 Alireza Rabie JAHED; Maryam Feizi; Labon Rabie Jahed; Tansagol Rabie Jahed, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 02-70487. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 4, 2003. Filed January 20, 2004. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Reza Athari, Immigration Law Offices of Reza Athari, Las Vegas, NV, for the Petitioner. Christine A. Bither, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the Respondent. Shelley Goad, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. Ary-vcs-wfy, Asa-ide-xwm to Aed-gac-osz. Before: B. FLETCHER, KOZINSKI, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge TROTT; Dissent by Judge KOZINSKI. TROTT, Circuit Judge: 1 Alireza Rabie Jahed ("Petitioner"), his wife, and their two children (collectively "Petitioners") petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's ("BIA") order denying their motion to remand and dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") order denying their respective asylum applications. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a), and we grant the…

Opinion by Judge TROTT; Dissent by Judge KOZINSKI.

Alireza Rabie Jahed (“Petitioner”), his wife, and their two children (collectively “Petitioners”) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order denying their motion to remand and dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their respective asylum applications. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a), and we grant the petition.

BACKGROUND

A.

Petitioners 1 are citizens of Iran who applied for asylum in the United States on *994 the grounds (1) that Petitioner Jahed had been the target of persecution by a soldier of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, known as the “Pastars,” and (2) that he fears dire consequences at the hand of the Iranian Government should he be forced to return. He alleges that his past persecution as well as his fear of future persecution stem from his involvement with the Mojahedin, a rival political group disfavored by the current government. In his asylum application, he described his association with that group as follows:

Jahed’s testimony generally elaborated on this information in his application and added detail to it, as we will discuss…

dissenting:

The question in this case is, in the immortal words of Humpty Dumpty, which is to be the master — that’s all. When it comes to the granting of asylum, Congress has said the BIA is the master. The *1002 statute provides it, the other courts of appeals recognize it and the Supreme Court keeps reminding us of it. But to no avail. Maybe there’s something in the water out here, but our court seems bent on denying the BIA the deference a reviewing court owes an administrative agency. Instead, my colleagues prefer to tinker — to do the job of the Immigration Judge and the BIA, rather than their own. See, e.g., INS v. Chen, 537 U.S. 1016 , 123 S.Ct. 549 , 154 L.Ed.2d 423 (2002); INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

This is yet another case in point. After carefully considering the record and correctly identifying the applicable law, the IJ concluded that petitioner is not eligible for asylum; the BIA affirmed, based largely on the IJ’s written opinion. The agency did not misunderstand the law or overlook key evidence; the agency did everything just right. What my…