Filed: Jul. 10, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT July 10, 2007 No. 06-16433 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ BIA No. A97-833-137 PAU THAWN MUNG, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ (July 10, 2007) Before BLACK, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Pau Thawn Mung, a Christian Chin who is a native and citizen
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT July 10, 2007 No. 06-16433 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ BIA No. A97-833-137 PAU THAWN MUNG, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ (July 10, 2007) Before BLACK, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Pau Thawn Mung, a Christian Chin who is a native and citizen o..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
July 10, 2007
No. 06-16433 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA No. A97-833-137
PAU THAWN MUNG,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(July 10, 2007)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pau Thawn Mung, a Christian Chin who is a native and citizen of Burma,
petitions this Court for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals that affirmed the decision of an Immigration Judge to deny his application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture. Mung contends that he is entitled to relief because he
has a well-founded fear of future persecution on the basis of his race and religion.
Because the record does not compel the conclusion that Mung has a well-founded
fear of future persecution, we deny the petition.
I. BACKGROUND
Mung entered the United States on April 11, 2004, without a valid entry
document. The Department of Homeland Security served Mung with a notice to
appear, charging him as subject to removal. Mung filed an application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on race, religion, and imputed
political opinion. In his application, Mung stated that he was a member of the
Chin ethnic group and the Harvester Christian Center, a Pentecostal church where
his father is a church deacon. Mung stated that he was a volunteer youth leader at
the Harvester Christian Center from 1998 to 2003.
Mung stated in both his application and at his removal hearing that, on
December 24, 2002, he was arrested by Burmese soldiers while leading a
Christmas “youth celebration” in a public park. Mung testified that he was
blindfolded and taken to an army camp where he was interrogated, beaten for 30
2
minutes, and accused of being a member of a student union organization. Mung
testified that he was not told why he was arrested. Before he was released, Mung
was forced to sign a statement promising not to be involved with political
activities. In his application for asylum, Mung stated that after his arrest, he was
“under a form of house arrest” and was banned from traveling for three months.
Mung stated in his application and at his removal hearing that he left Burma
in June 2003, after reports that his photo was found at the home of his friend, Zaw
Min Thang, a student union organizer who was arrested for his involvement with
the student union. Mung testified that since his departure from Burma, his family
members are required to report to the military government when they travel. He
stated that he feared that if he returned to Burma, he would be imprisoned and
tortured because he was an ethnic minority and a Christian and that he would be
safe nowhere in Burma.
The IJ denied Mung’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
CAT relief because there was insufficient evidence to support a fear of persecution
by the Burmese government on account of Mung’s race, religion, or imputed
political opinion. The IJ concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the
government imputed a political opinion to Mung based on his friendship with
Thang. The IJ found that there was no evidence that Mung suffered past
persecution on account of his religion and concluded that Mung failed to establish
3
a well-founded fear of future persecution in the light of the continued and
uneventful service of his father as a church deacon. The IJ reasoned that because
the events about which Mung complains all occurred in the same region, Mung
failed to establish country-wide persecution.
On appeal, the BIA adopted and affirmed the decision of the IJ. In addition,
the BIA found that Mung’s description of his detention was credible, but that the
single detention without serious injury did not rise to the level of persecution. The
BIA determined that the Burmese authorities detained Mung because they thought
that the Christian celebration was a political gathering and after they determined it
was not political, Mung was released. The BIA found that Mung’s testimony
about the arrest of Thang was too vague to support a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of a protected ground.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that it expressly
adopts the opinion of the IJ. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th
Cir. 2001). We review factual determinations of the BIA under the substantial
evidence test. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir.
2005). “Under this highly deferential standard of review, the IJ’s decision can be
reversed only if the evidence ‘compels’ a reasonable fact finder to find otherwise.”
Id.; see INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1,
112 S. Ct. 812, 815 n.1
4
(1992); Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004). We review
our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003).
III. DISCUSSION
Our review in this appeal is limited to the issue of whether substantial
evidence supports the conclusion of the BIA and IJ that Mung did not establish a
well-founded fear of future persecution on the basis of his religion or race. In his
brief on appeal, Mung does not challenge the determination of the IJ that he is not
entitled to withholding of removal or CAT relief, so those arguments are
abandoned. Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1286 n.3 (11th Cir.
2003). Because Mung limits the basis of his argument for asylum to fear of
persecution on account of his race and religion, his claim of fear of persecution on
account of an imputed political opinion is also abandoned.
Id. We lack
jurisdiction to consider Mung’s argument about past persecution because he failed
to present that argument to the BIA. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006).
The determination of the BIA and IJ that Mung failed to establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution on account of his race or religion if he returns to
Burma is supported by substantial evidence. There is substantial evidence that
Mung will not be persecuted based on his religion, because Mung’s father
5
continues to serve as a deacon in his church in Burma without problem.
Substantial evidence also supports the finding of the BIA that, although the army
detained Mung for one night, when it determined that the religious celebration at
which he was arrested was not a political gathering, Mung was released. There is
also no evidence that Mung was arrested on December 24, 2002, because of his
race or that he has any reason to believe that he will be singled out and persecuted
on account of his race if he were to return to Burma. Because the record does not
compel the conclusion that Mung has a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of his religion or race, we affirm the decisions of the BIA and IJ.
IV. CONCLUSION
Mung’s petition for review is
DENIED.
6
