Baljinder Singh SANGHA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
103 F.3d 1482, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 242, 97 Daily Journal DAR 387 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To qualify for asylum based on persecution on account of political opinion, an applicant must provide direct or circumstantial evidence that the persecutor's motive was to harm the victim specifically because of the victim's actual or imputed political views, not merely because the persecutor is a political entity with its own recruitment or tactical goals.
Facts:
- Baljinder Singh Sangha was a fifteen-year-old living on a farm with his family in Punjab, India.
- In June 1991, Sangha's father, Gursewak Singh, joined the Akali Dal Langowal party, which promoted peaceful political solutions and criticized militant groups.
- In August 1991, Sangha's father gave a speech criticizing the Bhindrawala Tiger Force (BTF), a violent organization seeking to create a separate Sikh homeland.
- In September 1991, four armed BTF members forced their way into the family home and beat Sangha's father.
- The BTF members demanded that the father cease his political activities, pay them 100,000 rupees, and turn over Sangha and his brother to fight for their cause and to deprive the father of support.
- After the family fled, the father returned to the farm and received a letter from the BTF reiterating their demands and threatening to kill the family.
- In response to the threat, Sangha's father arranged for Sangha and his brother to leave India.
- Sangha testified that he was never a member of his father's political party and 'didn't know anything' but supported his father.
Procedural Posture:
- Baljinder Singh Sangha entered the United States illegally on January 29, 1992, and was apprehended.
- In deportation proceedings, Sangha conceded deportability and applied for asylum or withholding of deportation.
- The immigration judge, serving as the court of first instance, denied his application and ordered deportation.
- Sangha timely appealed the immigration judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the intermediate administrative appellate body.
- The BIA affirmed the immigration judge's denial of asylum.
- Sangha then filed a petition for review of the BIA's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a militant group's attempt at forced recruitment constitute persecution 'on account of political opinion' when the applicant provides no evidence that the group was motivated by the applicant's own political views, as opposed to the group's general need for fighters or its desire to punish a family member?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodwin, Circuit Judge
No, a militant group's attempt at forced recruitment, without more, does not constitute persecution 'on account of political opinion'. Following the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Elias-Zacarias, an asylum seeker must prove that the persecution occurred because of the victim's political opinion, not the persecutor's. Sangha failed to meet this burden. He did not establish that he held an affirmative political opinion, nor did he show that he made a conscious choice of political neutrality. Furthermore, while a political opinion can be imputed to an applicant by a persecutor, Sangha provided no evidence that the BTF imputed his father's views to him or that their actions were motivated by any such imputed opinion. The BTF's stated reasons for the recruitment—to gain a fighter and to punish his father—were related to their own objectives, not Sangha's personal political beliefs. A simple refusal to be recruited is insufficient to prove the persecutor's motive was political.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the significant impact of INS v. Elias-Zacarias, which narrowed the grounds for asylum based on political opinion. It establishes that the focus of the inquiry must be on the persecutor's specific motive for targeting the victim, requiring the applicant to provide evidence connecting the persecution to their own political beliefs. The decision makes it more difficult for individuals fleeing generalized violence or forced recruitment by political factions to obtain asylum, as they must now prove a specific, personalized political motive for the persecution rather than just being a target of a political group's activities. This precedent solidifies the requirement for a clear causal link between the victim's opinion and the persecutor's actions.
