Peter Eclous Waswa v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER ECLOUS WASWA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70124
Agency No. A071-625-529
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted March 9, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Peter Eclous Waswa petitions for review of the December 31, 2009 order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Immigration
Judge and denied Waswa’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal and
relief under the Convention against Torture. We deny the petition as to all three
claims.
FILED
APR 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Although review of the BIA’s decision alone is sufficient to dispose of this
case, it is appropriate for us to consider the reasoning of both the IJ and the BIA.
See Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 2008). Because the BIA
explicitly stated that it had no disagreement with the IJ’s decision and reiterated the
IJ’s reasoning, our review should include the decision of the IJ as it was
incorporated by the BIA. See Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.
2011).
Turning to Waswa’s substantive claims, substantial evidence supports the
denial of relief. Although Waswa may have suffered past persecution, substantial
evidence supports the finding of changed country conditions in Uganda. The State
Department’s 1997 Report states that “amnesty for former rebels . . . appears to be
quite successful.” The evidence does not compel a conclusion that the 2000
Amnesty Act, which was not relied upon by the BIA, precluded amnesty for
Waswa as part of the program that has been in place since the early 1990’s for all
former rebels.
Further, the evidence of changed conditions was applied in a sufficiently
individualized manner. The findings from the 1997 Report directly addressed
Waswa’s specific harms and circumstances and his fear of persecution upon
returning to Uganda. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-

-- 2 of 4 --

3
1000 (9th Cir. 2003). There is substantial evidence that amnesty applies to all
“former rebels” like Waswa. Additionally, the 1997 Report specifically addressed
asylum applicants like Waswa, and noted that “membership and even leadership
roles in one of the opposition political parties or movements does not mean that the
person is in danger in Uganda today.” Thus, the changed conditions relate
specifically to Waswa’s fears in returning to Uganda.
Waswa also asserts that some of his proffered evidence rebuts a finding of
changed circumstances. None of this evidence, however, compels a conclusion
contrary to the IJ and BIA. Even assuming that Waswa’s testimony regarding what
he was told by his sister and his children is not as inconsistent as the IJ found, the
testimony is too vague to compel a reasonable adjudicator to conclude the BIA was
incorrect. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010).
Coupled with the fact that the army was “looking for” Waswa during the two years
he was in Uganda after deserting, but never found him, the evidence from Waswa’s
children and sister does not weigh heavily in favor of Waswa’s fear of future
persecution. Further, even though the IJ found Waswa to be generally credible as
to his past persecution and fear of return, this did not require the IJ to accept every
specific aspect of Waswa’s testimony. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988,
994-95 (9th Cir. 2008).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
The BIA conducted a legally appropriate individualized analysis of the
evidence of changed circumstances by relying on the documentation of amnesty
for rebel combatants that has been in place in Uganda since the mid-1990’s. A
reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to conclude to the contrary of the
BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --