Adil Zulbeari v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 963 F.2d 999 (7th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Adil Zulbeari v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 963 F.2d 999 (7th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
49 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Perez Ajpop v. Holder (ca5, 2009-08-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Perez Ajpop v. Holder
5th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994) (quoting Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992)) (emphasis in original).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alimi, Selman v. Ashcroft, John
7th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Reynoso-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 275, 280 (3d Cir. 2004); Zazueta-Carrillo v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 1166, 1173 (9th Cir. 2003); Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1001 (7th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Selman Alimi v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States
7th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Reynoso-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 275, 280 (3d Cir.2004); Zazueta-Carrillo v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 1166, 1173 (9th Cir.2003); Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1001 (7th Cir.1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lopez-Chavez, Jose L v. Ashcroft, John D.
7th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Ademi, 31 F.3d at 521 ; Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1001 (7th Cir. 1992); Kaczmarczyk, 933 F.2d at 597-98 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jose L. Lopez-Chavez v. John D. Ashcroft
7th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Ademi, 31 F.3d at 521 ; Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1001 (7th Cir.1992); Kaczmarczyk, 933 F.2d at 597-98 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ahmed, Djillali v. Ashcroft, John D.
7th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
As to the objective portion of the test, an asylum applicant must “present specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution.” Sayaxing v. INS, 179 F.3d 515, 520 (7th Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original) (quoting Sivaainkaran v. INS, 972 F.2d 161, 163 (7th Cir. 1992), and Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir. 1992)); see also Bhatt, 172 F.3d at 982 ; Krastev v. INS, 101 F.3d 1213, 1216 (7th Cir. 1996); Bevc v. INS, 47 F.3d 907, 910 (7th Cir. 1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Djillali Ahmed v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States
7th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
As to the objective portion of the test, an asylum applicant must “present specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution.” Sayaxing v. INS, 179 F.3d 515, 520 (7th Cir.1999) (emphasis in original) (quoting Sivaainkaran v. INS, 972 F.2d 161, 163 (7th Cir.1992), and Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992)); see also Bhatt, 172 F.3d at 982 ; Krastev v. INS, 101 F.3d 1213, 1216 (7th Cir.1996); Bevc v. INS, 47 F.3d 907, 910 (7th Cir.1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shahryar v. Ashcroft
5th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Demonstrating such a connection requires the alien to present “specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution." Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992); see also Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 1993) (requiring presentation of specific facts demonstrating either past persecution or a well- founded fear of future persecution).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shahryar v. Ashcroft
5th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Demonstrating such a connection requires the alien to present “specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution." Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992); see also Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 1993) (requiring presentation of specific facts demonstrating either past persecution or a well- founded fear of future persecution).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hafiz v. Ashcroft
5th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Demonstrating such a connection requires the alien to present “specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution." Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992); see also Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 1993) (requiring presentation of specific facts demonstrating either past persecution or a well- founded fear of future persecution).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shahryar v. Ashcroft
5th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Demonstrating such a connection requires the alien to present “specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution." Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992); see also Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 1993) (requiring presentation of specific facts demonstrating either past persecution or a well- founded fear of future persecution).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fedaa Al Najjar v. John Ashcroft
11th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994) 18 (quoting Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992)); Rezai v. INS, 62 F.3d 1286, 1289 (10th Cir.1995) (alien “must present specific, credible evidence to support his claim that he has been persecuted or will be persecuted if deported”); M.A. v. U.S. INS, 899 F.2d 304 , 311 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc) (“To validate the ‘well-foundedness’ of his fear, [the alien] must set forth specific, concrete facts.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fedaa Al Najjar v. John Ashcroft
11th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994)18 (quoting Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir. 1992)); 16 Fedaa did not testify regarding the substance of her actual political opinions; no witness attested that she believed in Palestinian autonomy or self-determination; and there was no documentary evidence which purported to attribute such an ideology to her.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ly Ying Sayaxing v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
7th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
While the subjective fear component turns primarily upon the applicant’s testimony and credibility, the “objective component of the test requires the applicant to ‘present specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution.’ ” See Sivaainkaran v. INS, 972 F.2d 161, 163 (7th Cir.1992) (quoting Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Soroya Sharif v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
7th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Merely alleging a fear of future persecution is not enough. “[T]his court has consistently held that in order to demonstrate a well-founded fear, a petitioner must present specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution.” Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jenica Borca v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
7th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Towards this end, “ ‘a petitioner must present specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution.’ ” Milosevic, 18 F.3d at 370 (quoting Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992) (citation omitted)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fidele Sanon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
7th Cir. · 1995 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000-01 (7th Cir.1992); Balazoski, 932 F.2d at 641-42 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bojana Bevc v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
7th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Sivaainkaran v. INS, 972 F.2d 161, 163 (7th Cir.1992); Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donatus Uzoma Nwokedi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
7th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
"Although the Supreme Court has declined to define 'well founded fear,' this court has consistently held that in order to demonstrate a well-founded fear, a petitioner must present specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution." Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992) (citing Bazasoski, 932 F.2d at 641 ; Carvajal-Munoz v. INS, 743 F.2d 562, 573 (7th Cir.1984). 12 Ultimately, an applicant bears the burden of proving both that he or she is statutorily eligible for asylum by virtue of being a "refugee" within the meaning of 8 …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tadeusz Zielinski v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
7th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Id. (quoting Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992)). 9 We review the BIA's determination that an alien is ineligible for asylum under the "substantial evidence" test.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Faddoul v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
5th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Demonstrating such a connection requires the alien to present “specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution.” See Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Irina Volkova, Alisa Gandina and Natalia Volkova v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
10th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Although the evidence showed that anti-Semitism exists in Russia and may be on the rise, the evidence did not establish a " 'reasonable possibility,' " Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 440 (quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 425 (1984)), that petitioners, two of whom are not Jewish, will be singled out for persecution in the future. 3 Further, as the IJ correctly noted, "private discrimination is not the same as persecution by the government." R. at 34; see also, De Souza v. INS, 999 F.2d 1156, 1159 (7th Cir.1993); Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1001 (7th Cir.1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nebi Ademi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2×) also: Cited "see"
7th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
It noted that the state of affairs in the former Yugoslav federation was “in flux” and “extremely uncertain.” 4 CAR 98 n. 1, citing Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d at 999. 5 In any event, this court need not consider whether official notice is required because Ademi never raised this issue with the BIA.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tihomir Milosevic v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
7th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
“Although the Supreme Court has declined to define ‘well-founded fear,’ this court has consistently held that in order to demonstrate a well-founded fear, a petitioner must present specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution.” Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992) (citing Balazoski v. INS, 932 F.2d 638, 641 (7th Cir.1991); Carvajal-Munoz v. INS, 743 F.2d 562, 573 (7th Cir.1984)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) William Khano v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
7th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Erica P. De Souza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2×)
7th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Sivaainkaran, 972 F.2d at 163 ; Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Chelvadurai Sivaainkaran v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
7th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir.1992); Balazoski v. INS, 932 F.2d 638, 640 (7th Cir.1991); Carvajal-Munoz, 743 F.2d at 573 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) COSTEL ARSENE v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
unknown court · confidence medium
Demonstrating such a connection requires the alien to present “specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution.” Id. (quoting Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999, 1000 (7th Cir. 1992)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Agustin Rhoa-Zamora v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Felipe Antonio Juresma-Altamirano and Luis Rodriguez-Altamirano v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Luis Andres Esquivel-Berrios v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
7th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999 (7th Cir.1992); Osaghae v. INS, 942 F.2d 1160 (7th Cir.1991); Kaczmarczyk v. INS, 933 F.2d 588 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 583 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rhoa-Zamora v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
7th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Zulbeari v. INS, 963 F.2d 999 (7th Cir.1992); Osaghae v. INS, 942 F.2d 1160 (7th Cir.1991); Kaczmarczyk v. INS, 933 F.2d 588 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 583 , 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Adil ZULBEARI, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
90-3299.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
May 12, 1992.
963 F.2d 999
James Canfield, Rockford, Ill. (argued), for Adil Zulbeari., Alison R. Drucker, Lori L. Scialabba, Charles E. Pazar, Robert Kendall, Jr., Philemina Jones (argued), Dept, of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Richard L. Thornburg, U.S. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., A.D. Moyer, I.N.S., Chicago, Ill., for I.N.S.
Cudahy, Manion, Eschbach.
Cited by 37 opinions  |  Published
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Adil Zulbeari, appeals from a decision of the Board of- Immigration Appeals (the BIA) denying his application for asylum and ordering his deportation. Zul-beari, an ethnic Albanian Muslim, who is a citizen of Yugoslavia, entered the country near El Paso, Texas as an alien and without inspection by an immigration officer. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (the INS) charged him with deportability. Zulbeari conceded that he is deporta-ble, but at his deportation hearing, he requested asylum. The Immigration Judge denied his request, holding that Zulbeari did not establish that he has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns to Yugoslavia. The Immigration Judge gave Zul-beari 30 days to voluntarily depart or be deported to Yugoslavia. The BIA dismissed his appeal. We affirm.

[*1000] BACKGROUND

The critical facts in this case surround the arrest and imprisonment of three of Zulbeari’s close friends for participating in a pro-Albanian demonstration in January 1986 and for possessing books relating to Albania and an Albanian flag. Zulbeari testified that he fears persecution because he worked closely with these men and spoke out against the government in conversations with them.

According to Zulbeari’s testimony, government authorities questioned him twice about his relationship with the three friends and about whether he possessed any Albanian books. The first interrogation took place in November 1985, and he was questioned for three hours. In January 1986, his home was searched while his family was home and while he was away at work. The authorities did not interrogate his family at this time. The second interrogation took place in February 1986 before the arrests of his three friends and lasted an entire day. Zulbeari testified that the authorities slapped him during this interrogation. Twenty days later, after procuring a passport extension through a bribe, Zul-beari left Yugoslavia for Mexico.

Zulbeari testified that he was not a member of any political organization [1] and did not participate in the January 1986 demonstrations for which his friends were arrested. The police did not find any Albanian books when they searched his home in January. He was not interrogated by the police at any time after his friends were arrested. Other than engaging in general discussions with friends about the injustices inflicted on the Albanians by the Yugoslav government, his only political activity was helping to organize a demonstration in Kosovo in 1981 concerning education. He stated that he did not attend the demonstration.

Zulbeari testified that government officials visited his home after he left and inquired as to his whereabouts. His wife told them that he had left the country. Zulbeari presented no other witnesses or affidavits in support of his petition.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

I. Asylum

We must uphold a BIA decision if it is supported by “substantial evidence.” Balazoski v. INS, 932 F.2d 638, 640 (7th Cir.1991); Carvajal-Munoz v. INS, 743 F.2d 562 (7th Cir.1984). Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158, provides for discretionary grants of asylum to persons who qualify as refugees under section 101(a)(42)(A) “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” Although the Supreme Court has declined to define “well-founded fear,” this court has consistently held that in order to demonstrate a well-founded fear, a petitioner must present specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution. Balazoski, 932 F.2d at 641; Carvajal-Munoz, 743 F.2d at 573. Zulbeari’s uncorroborated testimony is insufficient if it does not meet this standard.

There is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s finding that Zulbeari’s activities were not such that a reasonable person would fear persecution. He is not a member of a political organization, he has not participated in any demonstrations and he did not own any Albanian books while in Yugoslavia. The police interrogations to which he was subjected focused primarily on the activities of his friends and ceased[*1001] after they were arrested. Although the police visited his home after he left the country, he had obtained a passport extension by bribing an official, a circumstance that may have prompted the visit. There is no indication that the police interrogated his wife about his political activities and from his testimony the visit appeared to have been brief. There is also no evidence that his family has been disturbed since that initial visit in 1986, a fact that is relevant in determining whether there is a well-founded fear of persecution. See Cuadras v. INS, 910 F.2d 567, 571 (9th Cir.1990).

Zulbeari presented no specific facts demonstrating a reasonable fear of being singled out for persecution. In fact, it appears from the evidence that the authorities were interested in gathering information about his friends and have shown little, if any, interest in him since the time his friends were arrested. Zulbeari’s general complaints about the treatment of Albanians in Yugoslavia, [2] while of interest, do not constitute specific events which would result in singling him out for persecution. Instead, they are complaints about discrimination which would presumably be shared by many or all ethnic Albanians.

The facts here are even less compelling than in Balazoski, a recent decision of this court affirming a BIA decision to deny asylum to an ethnic Albanian citizen of Yugoslavia. Balazoski was actually involved in a secret organization championing the rights of Albanians, had participated in a demonstration in support of Albanian independence and had his picture taken with four demonstrators who were later arrested. His niece and nephew had been shot at a demonstration a few years earlier, and the authorities had subsequently interrogated Balazoski as to his beliefs. Balazoski testified that his wife and son were detained for a number of days after he left, and he presented affidavits from a relative and friends living in the United States stating that on visits to Yugoslavia they had been questioned about him by the authorities. Nonetheless, we held that there was substantial evidence to support the BIA’s conclusion that Balazoski’s fear of persecution was not objectively reasonable.

Like Balazoski, Zulbeari may fear persecution subjectively, but even more clearly than Balazoski, his political activities were not “of a magnitude or frequency that would cause a reasonable person to fear persecution.” Balazoski, 932 F.2d at 641. [3] Hence, because it is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the decision of the BIA denying asylum.

II. Voluntary Departure

Petitioner has also requested that, should we affirm the decision of the BIA, we require the BIA to reinstate the 30 day voluntary departure period granted earlier. This court “lack(s) authority to review the INS’s discretionary grant of voluntary departure.” Kaczmarczyk v. INS, 933 F.2d 588, 598 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 583, 116 L.Ed.2d 608 (1991). That power rests with the district director of the INS. As in the Kaczmarczyk case, Zulbeari has not sought an extension of his voluntary departure pending appeal, but this can be remedied by filing a motion with the district director to reinstate voluntary departure. Kaczmarczyk, 933 F.2d at 598.

Affirmed.

1

. Zulbeari’s brief mentions that his father was jailed for six months in 1946 for anti-government activities while he was a member of Bali Komptar. Because Zulbeari had not even been born at that time, and his father has had no further run-ins with the authorities in the following 45 years, this fact is of little, if any, weight in determining whether Zulbeari has a well-founded fear of persecution. See Campos-Guardado v. INS, 809 F.2d 285 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 826, 108 S.Ct. 92, 98 L.Ed.2d 53 (1987) (petitioner did not demonstrate well-founded fear of persecution, even though she had witnessed the brutal murder of her cousin and uncle for their political opinions, had then been raped and subsequently warned by her assailant not to identify him; the political opinions of her relatives could not be imputed to her).

2

. Zulbeari has asked this court to take judicial notice of the uprising of Albanians against the Serbians. We decline to do so for several reasons. First, this request was not made to the BIA, and second, although this court has noted that Yugoslavia is “a country long troubled by ethnic tensions that of late have alarmingly increased,” Balazoski, 932 F.2d at 640, the state of affairs in Yugoslavia is extremely uncertain and not "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(2).

3

. In Balazoski, we discussed the difficult task of defining "persecution” and concluded that, although Balazoski might be subject to harassment on his return, harassment did not rise to the level of persecution. Balazoski, 932 F.2d at 641-642. It is not clear in Zulbeari’s case that he would even be subject to harassment.