Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Clavel-Vazquez v. INS, 1st Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    The US Court of Appeals upheld the BIA's denial of asylum and withholding of deportation for Jose Amilcar Clavel-Vasquez. The Court found that Clavel-Vasquez did not provide sufficiently compelling evidence that he would face persecution due to his political opinions if deported. While Clavel-Vasquez feared persecution, the record did not establish a clear nexus between his fears and political opinions. The Court agreed with the BIA's decision, which in turn agreed with the reasoning of the Immigration Judge.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-10-28 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 98-1203

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The US Court of Appeals upheld the BIA's denial of asylum and withholding of deportation for Jose Amilcar Clavel-Vasquez. The Court found that Clavel-Vasquez did not provide sufficiently compelling evidence that he would face persecution due to his political opinions if deported. While Clavel-Vasquez feared persecution, the record did not establish a clear nexus between his fears and political opinions. The Court agreed with the BIA's decision, which in turn agreed with the reasoning of the Immigration Judge.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views3 pages

    Clavel-Vazquez v. INS, 1st Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The US Court of Appeals upheld the BIA's denial of asylum and withholding of deportation for Jose Amilcar Clavel-Vasquez. The Court found that Clavel-Vasquez did not provide sufficiently compelling evidence that he would face persecution due to his political opinions if deported. While Clavel-Vasquez feared persecution, the record did not establish a clear nexus between his fears and political opinions. The Court agreed with the BIA's decision, which in turn agreed with the reasoning of the Immigration Judge.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    USCA1 Opinion

    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION

    NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

    United States Court of Appeals


    For the First Circuit

    No. 98-1203

    JOSE AMILCAR CLAVEL-VASQUEZ,

    Petitioner,

    v.

    IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

    Respondent.

    PETITION FOR REVIEW OF


    AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

    Before

    Lipez, Circuit Judge,


    Coffin and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Alan M. Tow with whom Linda A. Cristello was on brief for


    petitioner.
    Joseph F. Ciolino, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation,
    with whom Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, and Carl H.
    McIntyre, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, were on brief for
    respondent.

    October 26, 1998

    Per curiam. Petitioner Clavel-Vasquez seeks reversal of


    an order of deportation issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals
    (BIA).

    We may reverse the BIA's determination that petitioner is

    deportable only if he can demonstrate that the evidence he


    presented was "so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
    fail to find" that he was eligible for asylum or withholding of
    deportation.

    INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 484 (1992); seealso id.

    Ravindran v. INS, 976 F.2d 754, 758 (lst Cir. 1992).


    has not met this burden.

    Petitioner

    The record simply does not present a

    sufficiently compelling nexus between petitioner's fear of


    persecution and any political opinion.

    Indeed, having carefully

    reviewed the record and relevant law, we find ourselves in full


    agreement with the BIA's decision, which in turn relied upon the
    reasons stated by the Immigration Judge.
    here their thoughtful discussions.

    We see no need to repeat

    See Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8

    (lst Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts
    and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately
    confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing
    officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings"
    so long as the opinion or order reflects individualized attention
    to the case.).
    The petition for review is denied and dismissed.

    You might also like