I applied for Asylum and I am from a very volatile country in Africa. I went for interview in February 2011. On 4 March my lawyer received a NOID I did not receive a copy. The NOID stated that although I had proved that I am a known political activist I had failed to show that the government had inclination to harm me. In reaching this conclusion,the NOID overlooked 3 pieces of evidence which had been attached to the original application. Actually it states I did not provide supporting evidence. My lawyer has sent a rebuttal today it is long and has new and old evidence of country conditions. What are the chances that this AO would read the rebuttal carefully if he was not careful in the first instance. I also think the AO was a bit rude and harsh in the 3 hr interview which he said I was credible.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Got NOID showing Asylum Officer did not read case thoroughly: any chance?
- Thread starter africanum
- Start date
"you have failed to establish all four prongs of the modified Mogharrabi test for well-foundeness in that you have not shown that your persecutors have the inclination to harm you. You stated that you left yourcountry a final time when youlearned from a policeman that you were wanted by security agents in your country although you presented no documentation to support your claim. "
I had presented an affidavit of a family member who was present when state agents came looking for me the night I fled my country after being warned by a sympathetic police officer. I also presented an affidavit from my father whose shop was destroyed by soldiers looking for me. I am a journalist and I presented my articles which are critical of the govt and journalists in my country are persecuted daily. By law if a person shows that he falls into a group of persecuted people he is not required to show that he will be targetted individually. Still the AO gave me a NOID
I had presented an affidavit of a family member who was present when state agents came looking for me the night I fled my country after being warned by a sympathetic police officer. I also presented an affidavit from my father whose shop was destroyed by soldiers looking for me. I am a journalist and I presented my articles which are critical of the govt and journalists in my country are persecuted daily. By law if a person shows that he falls into a group of persecuted people he is not required to show that he will be targetted individually. Still the AO gave me a NOID
Last edited by a moderator:
Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439, 445 (BIA 1987), Decided by Board June 12, 1987, Held:
(1)In INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), the United States Supreme Court held that the "clear probability" of persecution standard employed for withholding of deportation under section 243 (h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1982), does not converge with, and may not be equated with, the "well-founded fear" of persecution standard used for asylum under section 208, 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (1982). Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985), is therefore overruled insofar as it held that the two standards were not meaningfully different, and in practical application converged.
(2)The well-founded fear of persecution standard used in section 208 of the Act is significantly different from the clear probability standard used in section 243 (h).
(3)An applicant for asylum under section 208 of the Act has established a well-founded fear if a reasonable person in his circumstances would fear persecution.
(4)A reasonable person may well fear persecution even where its likelihood is significantly less than clearly probable.
(5)An alien's own testimony in an asylum case may be sufficient, without corroborative evidence, to prove a well-founded fear of persecution where that testimony is believable, consistent, and sufficiently detailed to provide a plausible and coherent account of the basis for his fear.
(6)Matter of Acosta's requirement that an applicant for asylum show, inter alia, that the potential persecutor "could easily become aware" that the applicant possesses a belief or characteristic the persecutor seeks to overcome by some punishment is changed by omitting the word "easily."
The surviving "test" factors:
(1) the alien possesses a belief or characteristic a persecutor seeks to overcome in others by means of punishment of some sort;
(2) the persecutor is already aware, or could become aware, that the alien possesses this belief or characteristic;
(3) the persecutor has the capability of punishing the alien; and
(4) the persecutor has the inclination to punish the alien.
Hopefully, your attorney has addressed their concerns sufficiently. Good Luck.
(1)In INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), the United States Supreme Court held that the "clear probability" of persecution standard employed for withholding of deportation under section 243 (h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1982), does not converge with, and may not be equated with, the "well-founded fear" of persecution standard used for asylum under section 208, 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (1982). Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985), is therefore overruled insofar as it held that the two standards were not meaningfully different, and in practical application converged.
(2)The well-founded fear of persecution standard used in section 208 of the Act is significantly different from the clear probability standard used in section 243 (h).
(3)An applicant for asylum under section 208 of the Act has established a well-founded fear if a reasonable person in his circumstances would fear persecution.
(4)A reasonable person may well fear persecution even where its likelihood is significantly less than clearly probable.
(5)An alien's own testimony in an asylum case may be sufficient, without corroborative evidence, to prove a well-founded fear of persecution where that testimony is believable, consistent, and sufficiently detailed to provide a plausible and coherent account of the basis for his fear.
(6)Matter of Acosta's requirement that an applicant for asylum show, inter alia, that the potential persecutor "could easily become aware" that the applicant possesses a belief or characteristic the persecutor seeks to overcome by some punishment is changed by omitting the word "easily."
The surviving "test" factors:
(1) the alien possesses a belief or characteristic a persecutor seeks to overcome in others by means of punishment of some sort;
(2) the persecutor is already aware, or could become aware, that the alien possesses this belief or characteristic;
(3) the persecutor has the capability of punishing the alien; and
(4) the persecutor has the inclination to punish the alien.
Hopefully, your attorney has addressed their concerns sufficiently. Good Luck.
The AO found that I met 3 of Mogharrabi's test, on the 4th he did not take evidence at hand into consideration. By overlooking the evidence doesnt it show that the system is a bit lax. I would have thought that if the AO missed, then the supervisor was supposed to see it. Now that I gave the rebuttal, will they be thorough or it is just a formality.
ThatFlyGuy
Registered Users (C)
By law if a person shows that he falls into a group of persecuted people he is not required to show that he will be targetted individually.
It is not exactly a correct statement. If a person shows that he falls into a group of persecuted people, he still is required to show that he FEARS that there is A CHANCE that he will be persecuted if he gets deported back to COP.
My personal opinion of your NOID:The AO has taken into account of the culmination of harms that you had suffered in your COP and established that you did not suffer from past persecution. His next step was to institute the Mogharrabi Test in order to determine if indeed you have well-founded fear of persecution. Like you said, he did not think that you had proved that the government does have the inclination to harm you. I personally feel that you EITHER need to provide more instance of harm in order to proof that you have been persecuted OR you need to show that the government has that inclination.