82 F. 3d 423 - Scott v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Maria Teresa Sierra de Scott, and her two minor sons, natives and citizens of Nicaragua,1 petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying their applications for asylum under section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) and deny the petition for review.

We review the factual findings regarding an applicant's eligibility for asylum under the substantial evidence standard, see Shirazi-Parsa v. INS, 14 F.3d 1424, 1427 (9th Cir.1994), and the factual determinations will be upheld "if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole," 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4). To obtain a reversal, an applicant must show that his or her evidence " 'was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.' " Shirazi-Parsa, 14 F.3d at 1427 (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)).

To qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that he or she has suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(a). To establish a well-founded fear of persecution, an applicant must present a genuine subjective fear of harm, and must show that this subjective fear is objectively reasonable. See Shirazi-Parsa, 14 F.3d at 1427.

Sierra de Scott contends that the evidence presented compels a finding that she suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her actual or imputed anti-Sandinista political opinion.

Sierra de Scott bases her claim for asylum on: (1) her husband's problems with the Sandinistas, which resulted in their flight from Nicaragua to the Cayman Islands; (2) her detention and interrogation at the airport when she returned to Nicaragua in 1982; and (3) the history of persecution against her family, including the incarceration, torture, and death of one brother, and the detention of two other brothers.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Sierra de Scott did not establish past persecution by the Sandinistas on account of her actual or imputed political opinion.

Sierra de Scott credibly testified that her husband was a famous basketball player who was used as a "political pawn" by the Sandinista regime. Although he opposed the Sandinistas, the authorities selected Mr. Scott to serve as the Minister of Sport, and he was required to promote Sandinista policies. Because of his opposition to those policies, Mr. and Mrs. Scott fled to the Cayman Islands in 1979.2 Upon Sierra de Scott's return to Nicaragua from the Cayman Islands to visit her seriously ill mother in 1982, the Sandinista authorities detained her for thirty minutes at the airport, and interrogated her about Mr. Scott. Sierra de Scott was released unharmed, and she departed Nicaragua without incident fifteen days later.3

This single detention does not appear to be severe enough to compel a finding that Sierra de Scott was actually persecuted in the past. See e.g., Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that brief detention and beating does not compel a finding of persecution). Moreover, the record does not compel a finding that the harm suffered by Sierra de Scott's husband and brothers provides a basis for finding that she personally suffered past persecution.4

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's determination that Sierra de Scott did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution based upon her husband's difficulties with the Sandinistas, or her family background.

Sierra de Scott contends that because of her prior detention and the fact that her non-Latino surname is rare, she would be easily identified and targeted for further harm. Sierra de Scott also testified that she would be at risk because many members of her family have been accused of being counterrevolutionaries and have been harmed by the Sandinistas. Moreover, five members of her family have been granted asylum in the United States.

While the evidence presented could support a reasonable fear of persecution, a factfinder would not be compelled to find that Sierra de Scott has a well-founded fear of persecution. First, it appears from her testimony that the Sandinistas were primarily interested in her husband when they interrogated her in 1982, and they showed little interest in her activities. Moreover, Sierra de Scott provided no evidence that the Sandinistas interrogated or threatened her regarding the political activities of her brothers. Second, Sierra de Scott returned to Nicaragua in 1985 to attend her mother's funeral, and during that five-day visit, she was not questioned about Mr. Scott or her siblings. Finally, the substantial political changes in Nicaragua subsequent to her departure further weaken Sierra de Scott's claim of future persecution. See Kazlauskas, 46 F.3d 902, 906 n. 3 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that fundamental political changes are highly relevant to the likelihood of future persecution).5

Accordingly, Sierra de Scott failed to provide objective evidence to support her subjective fear of harm. See Shirazi-Parsa, 14 F.3d at 1427.6

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.