In re M-Z-M-R-

12 Cited authorities

Parussimova v. Mukasey
555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 506 times
Holding that "persecution may be caused by more than one central reason"
Melkonian v. Ashcroft
320 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 307 times
Finding error in the agency's failure to consider the fact that petitioner's wife and son had both been granted asylum in the United States in evaluating the reasonableness of relocation
Lukwago v. Ashcroft
329 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2003) Cited 264 times
Holding "that the 'particular social group' must exist independently of the persecution suffered by the applicant for asylum."
Knezevic v. Ashcroft
367 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 136 times
Holding that a well-founded fear requires petitioner to show more than a generalized or random possibility of persecution
Afriyie v. Holder
613 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 109 times
Holding that even if evidence "suggests that the police were willing to protect [petitioner], that says little if anything about whether they were able to do so"
Singh v. Ilchert
63 F.3d 1501 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 157 times
Finding imputed political opinion based on Indian police's belief that applicant was affiliated with Sikh militants
Kaiser v. Ashcroft
390 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 100 times
Holding that petitioners failed to establish clear probability of persecution where they lived in Pakistan without harm for ten years after being placed on "hit list"
Bace v. Ashcroft
352 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 46 times
Holding that persecution of election commissioner for refusal to certify an election was on account of a political opinion
Singh v. Ilchert
69 F.3d 375 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 47 times
Finding persecution on account of political opinion when the persecutors' statements indicated they were acting because of the victim's political beliefs
Gambashidze v. Ashcroft
381 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 22 times
Concluding that substantial evidence did not support BIA's conclusion that internal relocation would be successful in avoiding future persecution

In re M-Z-M-R-

12 Cited authorities

Holding that "persecution may be caused by more than one central reason"

Finding error in the agency's failure to consider the fact that petitioner's wife and son had both been granted asylum in the United States in evaluating the reasonableness of relocation

Holding "that the 'particular social group' must exist independently of the persecution suffered by the applicant for asylum."

Holding that a well-founded fear requires petitioner to show more than a generalized or random possibility of persecution

Holding that even if evidence "suggests that the police were willing to protect [petitioner], that says little if anything about whether they were able to do so"

Finding imputed political opinion based on Indian police's belief that applicant was affiliated with Sikh militants

Holding that petitioners failed to establish clear probability of persecution where they lived in Pakistan without harm for ten years after being placed on "hit list"

Holding that persecution of election commissioner for refusal to certify an election was on account of a political opinion

Finding persecution on account of political opinion when the persecutors' statements indicated they were acting because of the victim's political beliefs

Concluding that substantial evidence did not support BIA's conclusion that internal relocation would be successful in avoiding future persecution