Baballah v. Ashcroft
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
335 F.3d 981 (2003)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Abrahim Baballah arrived in the United States with his wife, Ula Baballah, and his son, Ahmad Baballah, from Israel and sought asylum. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), representing Attorney General Ashcroft (plaintiff), began deportation proceedings before an immigration judge (IJ). Baballah testified at the hearing that he was an ethnic Arab from a mixed-religion marriage. Baballah testified that in his hometown, he suffered verbal harassment from Jewish residents. Baballah testified that because he was unable to find any other employment, he began fishing. Baballah testified that the Israeli Marines would harass and physically assault him and would single him out for unwarranted citations for substantial fines. Baballah testified that this harassment prevented him from retaining a boat crew and earning a living. Baballah testified that the Israeli government also harassed members of his family, confiscating his father’s property and preventing his brothers from working and competing in the Olympics. Although finding Baballah testified credibly, the IJ concluded that his interactions with the Israeli military and civilians did not constitute persecution. The IJ concluded the evidence did not show that Baballah would be unable to support his family if required to return. The IJ, therefore, denied the asylum application, and Baballah appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. Baballah appealed to the Ninth Circuit, reasserting his asylum application.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Paez, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.