Peter

Peter v. Keisler

Good Law
257 F. App'x 11
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 9, 2007No. 04-72604California327 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Ethnically an Hungarian, born in 1964 in Transylvania, Romania, Peter suffered from discrimination, harassment, family losses, and actual beatings unrestrained by the police—a series of serious indignities and offenses that a factfinder could find constituted persecution on account of his ethnicity. He briefly left Romania in 2000 and then returned, finally leaving for the United States on January 4, 2001.

The Board ruled that Peter was not a refugee prior to his final departure. The reason was that earlier, Peter did not meet the statutory definition of a refugee. He was not unwilling or able to return to Romania.

The Board’s reasoning and conclusion as to Peter’s refugee status are impeccable. But after his flight from Romania in January 2001, Peter was not willing to return. At that date, he met the statutory definition and was eligible for asylum if he could establish past persecution and a fear of future persecution. The Board held that the persecution he suffered prior to December 2000 could not now be considered. In doing so, the Board committed an error of law and because of this error of law excluded much of Peter’s evidence. The error was to make…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.