Matepa
Matepa v. Mukasey
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Valeriu and Maria Matepa, and their children Elena and Ivan, all of whom are citizens of Moldova, petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.
Valeriu Matepa is of Ukranian ethnicity and the Matepa family’s primary language is Russian. The Matepas’ asylum claim rests on their allegations that they were persecuted in Moldova on account of their nationality. They contend that the IJ applied the incorrect legal standard in deciding whether the evidence demonstrated that the Moldovan government played a sufficient role in the family’s persecution. The Matepas argue that the IJ erroneously required them to establish complicity on the part of the Moldovan police.
We have held that “affirmative state action is not necessary to establish a well-founded fear of persecution if the government is unwilling or unable to control *455 those elements of its society responsible for targeting a particular class of individuals.” Ave tova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192, 1196 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotations…
Dissenting Opinion
Carroll, J.
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. Despite several credible incidents of persecution, none of which resulted in police protection from— or prosecution of—the wrongdoers, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) determined that the Matepa family had not suffered past persecution and the Moldovan 1 government was willing to protect them and other Russian speakers from future persecution. 2 These conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir.2004).
We look at the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether a finding of persecution is compelled. 3 See Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.1998) (“The key question is whether, looking at the cumulative effect of all the incidents a petitioner has suffered, the treatment [he or] she received rises to the level of persecution.”)). Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Turcios v. INS, 821 F.2d 1396, 1398 (9th Cir.1987).