ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

                           United States Court of Appeals
                                   Tenth Circuit
                                    SEP 13 2001
                                   PATRICK FISHER
                               FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
         DAIVE MICKEVICIUTE,              
         v.                                         No.  00-9535
                                                  (No. A72-453-377)
         IMMIGRATION &  NATURALIZATION          (Petition for Review)

         Before EBEL, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

              After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has 

         determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the 

         briefs without oral argument.  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

         The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.  

              Petitioner Daive Mickeviciute seeks review of the final decision by the 

         Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's

         (1)     This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 
         doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.  The court 
         generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 
         and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

         decision to deny petitioner's request for asylum.  Our jurisdiction over this 

         matter arises under 8 U.S.C. . 1105a(a) (1996).(1)  We affirm.

              Petitioner, a citizen of Lithuania, entered the United States as a business 

         visitor on June 12, 1991, and overstayed her visa.  In response to a show cause 

         order, petitioner conceded deportability and applied for asylum on November 

         14, 1992.  After a hearing, the immigration judge issued a decision on May 16, 

         1994, denying petitioner's request for asylum on the ground that she had not 

         shown a reasonable fear of persecution.  The BIA dismissed petitioner's appeal 

         on September 1, 2000, agreeing that she had not shown a reasonable fear of 

         persecution if deported. 

              We review the BIA's determination of eligibility for asylum under 

         a substantial evidence standard.  INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 

         (1992).  The BIA's decision will be upheld unless petitioner's evidence is so 

         compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find her eligible for 

         asylum.  See id. at 481 n.1, 483-84.

               Applying these standards, we conclude the BIA's decision is supported by 

         substantial evidence.  Petitioner argues that the BIA erred in viewing her 

         economic persecution claim as arising solely from poor country conditions, 

         thereby ignoring evidence that she feared persecution based on her political 

         opinion.  This is not an accurate characterization of the BIA's decision, 


              The BIA recognized that petitioner was arguing that she feared economic 

         persecution based on her political opinion, but rejected this argument on the 

         grounds that (1) although many people were in the same position as petitioner 

         there were no documented reports of low-ranking party members being 

         persecuted after independence; (2) many members of Parliament are former 

         members of the communist party to which petitioner belonged; (3) her claim 

         that she would be persecuted by former members of the Lithuanian communist 

         party and folk groups was undermined by her membership in those 

         organizations; and (4) there was no evidence that Sajudis or pro-Russia 

         supporters would target someone in petitioner's position.  The BIA's 

         subsequent comment that asylum should not be granted based on economic 

         hardship relating to poor country conditions or general civil unrest simply 

         (1)     On September 30, 1996, the President signed into law the Illegal 
         Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 
         Pub.L.No. 104208, 110 Stat. 3009546, which limited our authority to 
         review immigration decisions.  The new provisions do not apply here, however, 
         because the INS initiated petitioner's deportation proceedings before IIRIRA's 
         effective date of April 1, 1997.  See id.  309(c)(1).  Although IIRIRA's 
         transitional rules do apply, id. 309(c)(4); Berehe v. INS, 114 F.3d 159, 161 
         (10th Cir. 1997), they do not preclude judicial review, as the proceedings in 
         this case are not of the type listed in  309(c)(4)(E) or (G).

         bolstered its decision, and was not a statement that petitioner's application was based
		 solely on these conditions.(2)  Because the BIA did not ignore undisputed 

         evidence, and because petitioner's evidence does not compel a finding that she 

         is eligible for asylum, the decision will be upheld.

              The decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals is AFFIRMED.

                                                 Entered for the Court
                                                 Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                                                 Circuit Judge

         (2)     In addition, petitioner inaccurately describes the evidence presented at 
         the hearing.  Petitioner testified only that she would not be able to get 
         employment "because their unemployment rate is so high."  Aplt. App. at 57. 
         Although she then made some type of statement that "the people that they trust 
         . . . can't get the jobs," id., it is unclear what she is referring to, and we need 
         not accept her posthoc representation that this statement meant that she would 
         not get a job based on her political opinions.
              Also, petitioner's witness did not directly testify that petitioner would be 
         unable to get a job because of her political beliefs, stating instead that 
         petitioner would run into trouble "when she starts working again."  Id. at 76. 
         The closest the witness got to a direct statement regarding economic 
         persecution was her testimony that she was unsure whether petitioner would 
         find work, that in attempting to get work she would come into contact with her 
         former coworkers and would "get right into the center of all these events," and 
         that she would be hampered by her stay in the United States.  Id.