Worku

MEMORANDUM ***

Seble Worku petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Worku asylum. 1 The IJ found Worku statutorily eligible for asylum, however, the IJ denied Worku asylum on discretionary grounds because of Worku’s membership in the political organization, Oromo Liberation Front (“OLF”).

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b). We hold that the IJ abused its discretion in failing to balance all relevant factors in favor of and against granting asylum and therefore VACATE the judgment of the BIA and REMAND for further consideration.

I

Worku is a native and citizen of Ethiopia. 2 She is of Oromo ethnicity and while in Ethiopia belonged to the OLF, a political organization which defends the rights of and works to establish an independent nation for the Oromo people. Security agents arrested Worku several times because of her work for the OLF. After learning from her family that she *525 would be arrested and killed if security-agents found Worku, she fled the country and entered the United States using a fake passport.

On May 29, 2001, Worku filed her request…

dissenting:

Because the IJ’s decision — read as a whole — demonstrates he considered all relevant factors before making his discretionary decision to deny Worku’s asylum claim, I respectfully dissent. The majority states the “IJ did not give any consideration whatsoever to other relevant factors such as Worku’s past persecution.” 1 Not so. The IJ discussed Worku’s past persecution at length in his opinion, concluding Worku had credibly established both that she had been the subject of past persecution, and she had a well-founded fear of future persecution. Based on this conclusion, the IJ found Worku statutorily eligible for asylum. The IJ further found Worku eligible for withholding of removal, because it appeared “rather clear, in fact, overwhelming from reading the State Department report, that an OLF member, once detected, would be incarcerated and mistreated.” Thus, the IJ not only considered Worku’s testimony regarding her past persecution, but he also gave it sufficient weight to merit a determination she was statutory eligible for asylum and withholding of removal.

Despite this evidence of past and likely future persecution, however, the IJ denied Worku’s asylum claim as…