Filed: Apr. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-22-2004 Bridgemohan v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-1763 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "Bridgemohan v. Atty Gen USA" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 790. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/790 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the O
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-22-2004 Bridgemohan v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-1763 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "Bridgemohan v. Atty Gen USA" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 790. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/790 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Op..
More
Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-22-2004
Bridgemohan v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1763
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Bridgemohan v. Atty Gen USA" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 790.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/790
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-1763
DHANPAUL BRIDGEMOHAN,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent
_________________________________
On petition for review of a final order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
File No: A79-437-025
_________________________________
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on March 25, 2004
Before: FUENTES, SMITH, and GIBSON,* Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 22, 2004)
______________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________________
JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
*
The Honorable John R. Gibson, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Dhanpaul Bridgemohan seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the
Board of Immigration Appeals. We deny his petition for review.
Bridgemohan is a native and citizen of Guyana. On March 3, 2002, he was
intercepted as he tried to enter the United States near Miami International Airport. He
was detained for a full asylum hearing after an immigration inspector determined that
Bridgemohan had established a credible fear of persecution if returned to his native
country. Bridgemohan sought asylum, withholding of removal to Guyana, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture based on his alleged past persecution and/or well-
founded fear of future persecution.
Bridgemohan's ethnicity is Indo-Guyanese. While in Guyana, he performed
volunteer work on a few occasions for the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP), which is
predominantly an Indo-Guyanese party. Bridgemohan described himself as a supporter,
but not a member, of this party. His volunteer work consisted of putting up campaign
posters and helping with meetings.
Bridgemohan testified that he was assaulted on three separate occasions, and that
the assaults were directly related to his support of the PPP. In each instance, his
assailants were Afro-Guyanese, an ethnic group commonly associated with the rival
Peoples National Congress (PNC) party.
The first incident occurred in February 2001, as Bridgemohan walked to the store.
He was attacked by two Afro-Guyanese men who wore T-shirts with the emblem of a
2
palm tree, identified by Bridgemohan as the symbol of the PNC. The men punched and
pushed him, called him a "coolie dog" – a derogatory term for persons of Indo-Guyanese
descent – and threatened to kill him.
The second incident occurred two months later. A group of Afro-Guyanese men
stopped a bus in which Bridgemohan was riding and forced the Indo-Guyanese
passengers off. The men harassed these passengers and threatened to kill the "coolie
dogs." Bridgemohan said that one of the Afro-Guyanese men identified him as the person
who was putting up campaign posters, and that he was robbed and beaten.
The third incident took place in August of the same year. Bridgemohan testified
that two Afro-Guyanese men approached him in the street, pushed and kicked him, and
told him that they did not want to see the "coolie dog" around anymore.
Bridgemohan's request for asylum and withholding were based in part on the
alleged failure of the police in Guyana to protect him. He testified that he reported each
of the first two incidents to the police, most of whom are Afro-Guyanese, but that the
police did nothing more than inform him that they would look into his complaints.
Bridgemohan also spoke to an Indo-Guyanese police officer on one occasion who told
him privately that little would be done about the incidents because of Bridgemohan's
ethnicity.
The Immigration Judge concluded that, even accepting Bridgemohan's testimony
as true, he failed to sustain his burden of establishing past persecution or a well-founded
3
fear of persecution based upon the protected grounds enumerated in the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (2000).1 The Board of Immigration Appeals
affirmed the Immigration Judge's decision without opinion.
The Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who demonstrates that he or
she is a refugee. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) (2000). In order to establish himself as a
refugee, Bridgemohan must demonstrate that he is unable or unwilling to return to
Guyana because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Bridgemohan can obtain asylum on the
grounds of past persecution if he establishes: 1) an incident, or incidents, that rise to the
level of persecution; 2) which took place on account of one of the statutorily protected
grounds; 3) and which was committed by the government or by forces the government
was unwilling or unable to control. Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002)
(quoting Navas v. INS,
217 F.3d 646, 655 (9th Cir. 2000)). He can demonstrate a well-
founded fear of future persecution by showing that he has a genuine fear, which would be
shared by a reasonable person in his circumstances, of persecution upon return to Guyana.
Gao, 299 F.3d at 271. As with past persecution, Bridgemohan must provide "conclusive
evidence" that the threat of future persecution is based on one of the five grounds
1
The Immigration Judge also denied Bridgemohan's request for protection under
the Convention Against Torture, but Bridgemohan does not appeal this denial.
4
enumerated in the statute. Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 373 (1st Cir. 2003).
Because the Board summarily affirmed the Immigration Judge's decision, we treat
the judge's decision as the "final agency determination" for purposes of our review.2 See
8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7)(iii) (2002); Gao, 299 F.3d at 271. The scope of our review is
"extremely narrow" because Congress has delegated administration and enforcement of
the Immigration and Nationality Act to the Attorney General, who in turn has vested his
power in the Board.
Id.
"Whether an asylum applicant has demonstrated past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution is a factual determination reviewed under the
substantial evidence standard."
Id. at 272. "Under the substantial evidence standard, the
[Immigration Judge's] finding must be upheld unless the evidence not only supports a
contrary conclusion, but compels it." Abdille v. Ashcroft,
242 F.3d 477, 483-84 (3d Cir.
2001). If a petitioner fails to establish that he is entitled to asylum, we presume he cannot
meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Janusiak v. INS,
947 F.2d 46, 47-
48 (3d Cir. 1991).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge's denial of
asylum. First, the record supports the Immigration Judge's conclusion that Bridgemohan
2
Contrary to Bridgemohan's assertions, the affirmation of the Immigration Judge's
decision by a single Board member without opinion does not deny Bridgemohan's right to
meaningful appellate review, nor any other substantive right. Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d
228, 234-45 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc).
5
failed to meet his burden of proving past persecution on account of his race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(42)(A). Bridgemohan's own testimony on the three assaults he suffered fails to
establish that they resulted from his political support for the PPP. In the first and third
incidents, Bridgemohan provided virtually no evidence that his attackers even knew of his
support for the PPP, and he gave only limited evidence that the attackers were members
of the rival PNC. He testified that he was identified as a supporter of the PPP in the
second incident, but did not give any indication that the assault occurred "on account of"
this political association. Instead, the evidence appeared to demonstrate only that the
attackers pulled several people off a bus for the purpose of robbing them.
Bridgemohan makes a stronger case when he argues that he suffered past
persecution on account of his race. Nonetheless, there was substantial evidence in the
record to support the Immigration Judge's conclusion that he did not meet his burden of
proving that the acts of violence were committed by the government or by forces the
government was unwilling to control. Bridgemohan does not argue that the police
committed the acts of violence themselves, but claims that the police refused to protect
him. However, he testified that the police told him they would look into his allegations
each time he reported them. While the police may not have investigated the allegations to
his satisfaction, we are not compelled by the record to conclude that the government was
entirely unwilling or unable to control the Afro-Guyanese or members of the PNC. Thus,
6
the situation here is unlike the cases relied upon by Bridgemohan, including Surita v. INS,
95 F.3d 814, 820 (9th Cir. 2001), and Arjune v. Ashcroft, No. 01-1468 (3d Cir. 2001)
(unpublished opinion), where the police officers made clear to the victim in each case
their unwillingness to investigate his claims. Furthermore, the record shows that
Bridgemohan's own party, the PPP, won the 2001 elections and had held political power
since 1992. The record also shows that persons of Indo-Guyanese descent make up the
majority of Guyana's population. This evidence of political and social power further
weakens Bridgemohan's claim that he suffered persecution at the hands of forces the
government was unwilling or unable to control. Accordingly, we deny Bridgemohan's
petition for review of the denial of his claim for asylum for past persecution.
For the same reasons, we deny Bridgemohan's petition for review of the denial of
asylum based on a well-founded fear of future persecution. Bridgemohan relied upon the
same evidence in both his past and future persecution claims, and it is insufficient to
compel us to conclude that any persecution he may suffer in the future will be on account
of one of the five protected grounds or that it will be suffered at the hands of forces the
government is unwilling or unable to control.
7
