Samuel Saparto v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL SAPARTO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70164
Agency No. A097-349-869
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 16, 2014
Seattle, Washington
Before: REINHARDT, KLEINFELD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Saparto, a native and citizen of Liberia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his claim for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). He argues the BIA erred by: ruling that he did not establish past
persecution on account of imputed political opinion; determining that the record
FILED
JUN 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 4 --

contains sufficient evidence of changed country conditions to overcome any
presumption of future persecution; determining that he failed to establish eligibility
for relief under the CAT; and denying him asylum on humanitarian grounds. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.1
We review the BIA’s decision that an applicant is not eligible for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief for “substantial evidence.” Hu v. Holder,
652 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2011). Under this deferential standard,
“administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
I. Asylum and Withholding of Removal
Saparto argues he was persecuted on account of the protected ground of
“imputed political opinion.” “An imputed political opinion arises when [a]
persecutor falsely attributes an opinion to the victim, and then persecutes the
victim because of that mistaken belief about the victim’s views.” Baghdasaryan v.
Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 n.6 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
1 The parties are familiar with the facts, so we will not recount them
here.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Saparto did not
establish persecution on account of his imputed political opinion. Though he was
forcibly conscripted into a militia, the Supreme Court has held that, absent a
political motive, an organization’s attempt to conscript a person into its military
forces is insufficient to compel a finding of persecution on account of political
belief. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992). Saparto was not part of a
political group at the time of his abduction. He was one of many people abducted
and forced to join the militia; he did not show that he was targeted because of his
father’s political opinions. His argument that the militia believed that he was
trying to escape because he disagreed with them politically is only based on
speculation. Additionally, Saparto presented no evidence that a string of tragic
occurrences — his father’s disappearance, his brother’s arrest, his wife’s death, the
militia’s killing of two fellow recruits — had any connection to his political views.
Because Saparto has failed to establish past persecution, he is not eligible for
humanitarian asylum. Vongsakdy v. INS, 171 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Saparto is
ineligible for withholding of removal. The standard for showing eligibility for
withholding of removal is more stringent than for asylum. Al-Harbi v. INS, 242
3

-- 3 of 4 --

F.3d 882, 888–89 (9th Cir. 2001). Saparto does not meet the lower asylum
standard, let alone the more stringent withholding standard.
II. Convention Against Torture
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Saparto failed to
establish it was more likely than not he would be tortured with the Liberian
government’s acquiescence upon removal to Liberia. Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d
1207, 1221 (9th Cir. 2005).
The record indicates improved country conditions in Liberia. A 2006 State
Department report noted, among other evidence of changed country conditions,
that “[a]fter 14 years of civil war and 2 years of an interim government, Ellen
Johnson-Sirleaf was declared the winner of multiparty presidential elections on
November 23, [2005,] marking a significant milestone in the country’s transition to
democracy,” and that there “were no reports of” politically motivated
disappearances, political detainees, or political prisoners. The report also stated
that “[a]s of year’s end, government and [United Nations] security forces
effectively controlled all of the country.” As such, the record does not compel the
conclusion that the BIA incorrectly denied Saparto relief on this ground.
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --