Parastoo Fatin v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
12 F.3d 1233, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 33014, 1993 WL 522827 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To qualify for asylum or withholding of deportation based on membership in a 'particular social group' or 'political opinion,' an alien must demonstrate a well-founded fear of 'persecution,' which denotes extreme conduct beyond generally harsh conditions or personal dislike, and must show that any required conduct would be so profoundly abhorrent to their fundamental identity or conscience as to be tantamount to persecution.
Facts:
- Parastoo Fatin, a native and citizen of Iran, entered the United States as an 18-year-old nonimmigrant student on December 31, 1978, approximately two weeks before the Shah left Iran.
- In May 1984, Fatin applied for political asylum, stating fears of interrogation, forced religious sessions, public admonishment, and jailing if she returned to Iran.
- Fatin indicated that she personally belonged to a student group that favored the Shah, refused to demonstrate with pro-Khomeini students, and refused to wear a veil as a sign of favoring Khomeini.
- Fatin's father, a physician, had been harassed by 'religious fanatics' in Iran, and two of her cousins had been jailed for about one year, with one later killed in a demonstration.
- At a hearing in May 1987, Fatin testified that she considered herself a 'feminist' who believed in equal rights for women and that Iranian women were second-class citizens.
- Fatin stated that if she returned to Iran, she would be required to wear a veil and practice Islam, and that she would try to avoid these requirements as much as she could, fearing jailing or public punishment if she did not comply.
- Fatin defined her 'particular social group' as 'the social group of the upper class of Iranian women who supported the Shah of Iran, a group of educated Westernized free-thinking individuals.'
- Fatin also asserted that her 'deeply rooted belief in feminism' and 'freedom of choice, freedom of expression, [and] equality of opportunity for both sexes' constituted a political opinion.
Procedural Posture:
- Parastoo Fatin applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) District Director for political asylum in May 1984.
- The INS District Director denied Fatin's asylum application in January 1986.
- The INS commenced a deportation proceeding against Fatin in February 1986, alleging she was deportable for failing to comply with student visa conditions.
- At a hearing in May 1986, Fatin conceded deportability, renewed her application for asylum, and applied for withholding of deportation.
- At a later hearing in May 1987, Fatin also applied for suspension of deportation.
- The immigration judge denied Fatin's applications for withholding of deportation, asylum, and suspension of deportation.
- Fatin appealed the immigration judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing fear of persecution based on membership in a particular social group and political opinion.
- The BIA dismissed Fatin's appeal and issued an order requiring her voluntary departure or deportation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Board of Immigration Appeals err in denying asylum, withholding of deportation, and suspension of deportation to an Iranian woman who claimed a well-founded fear of persecution due to her feminist beliefs and membership in a social group of educated, Westernized women who oppose Iran's gender-specific laws, and who feared 'extreme hardship' upon return?
Opinions:
Majority - ALITO, Circuit Judge
No, the Board of Immigration Appeals did not err in denying asylum, withholding of deportation, and suspension of deportation because Parastoo Fatin failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or eligibility for relief based on membership in a 'particular social group' or 'political opinion,' nor did she demonstrate 'extreme hardship.' The court defers to the BIA's interpretation of 'particular social group' as a group sharing a common, immutable characteristic or one fundamental to identity or conscience that should not be required to change, and 'persecution' as extreme conduct like threats to life, confinement, or torture, not encompassing all treatment our society deems unfair or offensive. While 'sex' can define a social group, and feminism can be a political opinion, Fatin did not show she would be persecuted solely as a woman, nor that Iranian feminists generally face persecution. Her claim as a member of 'Iranian women who refuse to conform' failed because her testimony only indicated a desire to avoid compliance, not an unwavering refusal based on a profound abhorrence that would equate compliance itself to persecution. The administrative record did not establish that the requirement to wear a chador or other gender-specific laws would be so profoundly abhorrent to Fatin personally as to constitute persecution. The court also found no procedural error in the BIA's 'extreme hardship' determination for suspension of deportation, as the BIA considered the relevant facts.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high evidentiary bar for asylum and withholding of deportation claims, particularly those based on gender or social group. It reinforces the principle of judicial deference to the BIA's interpretation of immigration law, specifically its narrow definitions of 'particular social group' and 'persecution.' The ruling establishes that mere dislike or objection to governmental policies, even if repugnant to American values, does not constitute persecution; rather, the compelled act must be profoundly abhorrent to the applicant's fundamental identity or conscience to rise to that level. Future applicants must provide specific, objective evidence of individualized persecution and demonstrate the depth of their convictions when claiming that compliance with objectionable laws would itself amount to persecution.
