Makonnen Yoseph v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States of America

*Hon. Mary A. McLaughlin, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
sitting by designation.
1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-2871
___________
MAKONNEN YOSEPH,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent
___________
On Appeal from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
INS No. A72-435-362
___________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
June 5, 2003
Before: BARRY, FUENTES, Circuit Judges, and McLAUGHLIN,* District Judge.
(Opinion Filed: March 3, 2004)

-- 1 of 8 --

2
__________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________________________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
The Petitioner, Makonnen Yoseph, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, appeals the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision to affirm, without opinion, the denial of
his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
concluded that Yoseph was not a victim of past persecution and was not likely to be the
subject of future persecution if he returned to Ethiopia. We will deny the petition for
review.
I.
Because we write for the parties, our review of the factual background is limited to
that which is necessary to inform our opinion today. Petitioner Yoseph is a twenty-nine
year old native of Ethiopia who was admitted to the United States on February 27, 1988,
as a non-immigrant student to attend Caldwell College in Caldwell, NJ. In November
1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) issued a Notice to Appear,
charging Yoseph with removability under INA § 237(a)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1227, for
failing to maintain or comply with the conditions of his non-immigrant status. At a
hearing in March 1998, Yoseph, through his attorney, admitted the factual allegations in

-- 2 of 8 --

3
the Notice to Appear, conceded removability, and requested political asylum, withholding
of removal and, in the alternative, voluntary departure.
In his testimony in support of his application for asylum and withholding, Yoseph
stated that he was born and raised in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia where he completed his high
school education. He came to the United States in 1988 to get a degree from an American
university. He testified that he was never arrested or detained in Ethiopia but that his
father had been arrested in 1991 because he worked for the previous government there
and because he was a member of the Amhara ethnic group, a minority ethnic group in
Ethiopia. He claims his father had been detained for four years and then released due to a
medical condition.
Yoseph further testified that the current regime in Ethiopia is mainly comprised of
the Tigrean ethnic group and that all other groups are considered hostile to the present
government. Yoseph is a member of the Amhara ethnic group which, according to him,
is considered by the current government to be a major opposition group. Yoseph also
detailed his current activities on behalf of Amharas here in the United States, testifying
that he coordinated membership activities here and informed them about events back
home. To corroborate this aspect of his testimony, he submitted a letter from the All-
Amhara People’s Organization (AAPO) in New York.
Yoseph also testified that his mother and father remain in Ethiopia and he knew of
no other relatives who had ever been harassed or persecuted. However, based on

-- 3 of 8 --

4
information from various human rights groups that Amharas in Ethiopia have been
persecuted and jailed, he believed he would be persecuted if returned to Ethiopia. As
previously stated, the IJ denied Yoseph’s petition for review and the BIA affirmed
without opinion.
II.
We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order of removal pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the BIA’s decision unless the BIA defers to the decision
of the IJ. We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(1). See Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123, 131 (3d Cir. 2003). The IJ’s adverse
credibility determination and findings of fact with respect to petitioner’s withholding of
removal must be reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. See Tarrawally v.
Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 184 (3d. Cir 2003). Under the substantial evidence standard, a
petitioner “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no
reasonable fact finder could fail to find” otherwise. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
483-84 (1992).
III.
A.
We first address the petitioner’s contention that the BIA’s application of
streamlined appellate procedures to his case under C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7) denied him the
“right to a meaningful appellate review.” In essence, his claim is that the BIA’s decision

-- 4 of 8 --

**The INA was amended by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
5
to affirm without opinion denied him due process. We recently addressed the regulations
under review. In Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 238 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc), we
determined that the streamlining regulations neither violate the Due Process Clause of the
Constitution nor do they run afoul of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.** Based on
our decision in Dia, we must conclude that the BIA’s actions in this case were proper.
B.
Yoseph applied for both asylum under § 208 and withholding of removal to
Ethiopia under § 241. To be eligible for ayslum, an alien must demonstrate that the
individual is a “refugee” as defined by INA § 1101(a)(42)(A). That is, he must show that
he is unwilling or unable to return to his country “because of” persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group or political opinion. In INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme
Court held that the well-founded fear element of the definition of a refugee requires that
the asylum seeker demonstrate that there is a “reasonable possibility” that he will be
exposed to persecution upon his return. 480 U.S. 421, 440 (1987) (adopting language of
INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424-25 (1984), which pointed out that “it is enough that
persecution is a reasonable possibility”). As the IJ also noted, an applicant for
withholding of removal under § 241(b)(3) must demonstrate a “clear probability” of
persecution based on one of the five protected grounds. See Stevic, 467 U.S. at 430.

-- 5 of 8 --

6
Withholding of removal is a higher standard for a refugee to meet. See Senathirajah v.
INS, 157 F.3d 210, 215 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding that an alien must show that it is more
likely than not that he will be subjected to persecution upon his return to qualify for
withholding of removal; but even if he fails to meet this standard, he may qualify for a
grant of asylum at the Attorney-General’s discretion if he shows a well-founded fear of
persecution, which only requires him to show that persecution is a reasonable possibility
on his return). The persecution must be committed by either the government or forces the
government is unable or unwilling to control. See Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272
(3d Cir. 2002). A well-founded fear of persecution has both a subjective and an objective
element: the alien must have a genuine fear of returning to his home country, and that fear
must be objectively reasonable, meaning that a reasonable person in his circumstances
would fear persecution upon his return. See Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 430-31.
In regard to Yoseph’s asylum application, the IJ held that Yoseph failed to
establish that he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution
because he did not present a detailed and specific account of his claims. The IJ also
determined that Yoseph failed to provide corroborating evidence respecting an important
part of his asylum claim.
In finding Yoseph not credible, the IJ observed that Yoseph’s testimony
concerning his fears of future persecution lack detail and specificity. Yoseph failed to
provide any specific information respecting his father’s alleged arrest and detention,

-- 6 of 8 --

7
which presumably spanned a period of four years, except to say merely that his father
came under arrest because he had worked for a previous government and that he was a
member of the Amhara ethnic group. Yoseph failed to provide any documentary
evidence to confirm this aspect of his testimony and failed to supply any affidavits from
either parent, both of whom still reside in Ethiopia. Additionally, Yoseph failed to
explain why such corroborating evidence was not available. Yoseph did supply a letter
from the AAPO organization in New York confirming his membership there, but that
letter provides no specific details respecting Yoseph’s allegations about his father’s
political activities, his father’s arrest or his father’s release for medical reasons.
We note, as well, that Yoseph’s claim that the current government is principally
made up of the Tigrean ethnic group is belied by the State Department Profile, which
states that members of the Amhara group do participate in the government there.
According to the Profile, the current regime has made an effort to include all ethnic
groups in its administration. Its first cabinet had four Amhara members, including the
Prime Minister who was also the Commander-in-Chief of the Ethiopian Armed Forces.
Additionally, the Profile notes that Amharas are major members of the Ethiopian People’s
Revolutionary Democratic Front, which captured 97% of the seats in the National
Parliament in the 1995 elections. The Profile further notes that there are no current
reports of any members of Amhara in exile facing trial or conviction upon their return to
Ethiopia for anti-government activities conducted overseas. These observations from the

-- 7 of 8 --

8
State Department Profile work directly against Yoseph’s assertion that he fears
persecution if returned to Ethiopia.
In sum, we conclude that the IJ’s decision to deny asylum is supported by
sufficient evidence contained in the record. There is no evidence that would compel a
reasonable fact finder to conclude that the IJ erred. Moreover, because the standard for
establishing withholding of removal is more stringent than the standard for asylum, an
alien who fails to demonstrate eligibility for asylum also fails to satisfy the more stringent
standard for withholding of removal. We have carefully examined Yoseph’s other
contentions and find them to be wholly without merit.
IV.
For the forgoing reasons, the petition for review will be denied.

-- 8 of 8 --