Elmer Domingo Marcos v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General

An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied petitioner Elmer Domingo Marcos asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158 ,,withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3), and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (c), after an administrative, hearing. The IJ found .that Marcos’s testimony lacked credibility, that the scenario of death threats he described did not rise to the level of persecution, and that Marcos’s fear of future persecution was undermined by changed country conditions in the Philippines. Marcos petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming without opinion the IJ’s ruling. 1 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (e)(4) (2002). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir.2005). We hold that the IJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and we remand for further consideration in light of this opinion.

I. Facts

Marcos, a native and citizen of the Philippines, worked as a medical technician for the Red Cross in Laoag City in the Philippines from July 1979 to June 1996, when he fled to the United States. 'Marcos…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

In 1996, in -a sworn visa application, Petitioner listed his brother-in-law’s current address at a house in Virginia, even though he knew that the man had died six years earlier. Petitioner claimed that he had not read the form that his wife filled out. But it was his form that contained the fraud.

Although our past cases do hold, as the majority notes, page 1117, that an applicant’s lie to gain entry to the United States does not necessarily prejudice the applicant’s later asylum application, I do not read those cases as going so far as to say that an IJ may not consider a past lie or act of fraud to bear on an applicant’s general propensity to tell the truth. To the contrary, our cases have noted that an applicant’s misrepresentations should be assessed in view of all the circumstances of the case. See Turcios v. INS, 821 F.2d 1396, 1400 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that, although untrue statements on an application are not reason alone to refuse refugee status, “it is the examiner’s responsibility to evaluate such statements in the light of all the circumstances of the case”). Here, the past fraud provided a legitimate basis for the IJ to seek…

410 F.3d 1112 Elmer Domingo MARCOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, * Respondent. No. 02-73968. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted February 15, 2005. ** Filed June 9, 2005. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Helen B. Zebel, San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner. Susan K. Houser, Washington, DC, for the respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. Alc-wye-fns. Before THOMAS, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. PAEZ, Circuit Judge. 1 An immigration judge ("IJ") denied petitioner Elmer Domingo Marcos asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158 , withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3), and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (c), after an administrative hearing. The IJ found that Marcos's testimony lacked credibility, that the scenario of death threats he described did not rise to the level of persecution, and that Marcos's fear of future persecution was undermined by changed country conditions in the Philippines. Marcos petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming without opinion the IJ's ruling. 1 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1…