Toufighi v. Mukasey

Pejman Toufighi (plaintiff) was a citizen of Iran who converted from Islam to Christianity while visiting his sister in the United States (defendant). Toufighi had learned about Christianity in Iran while in college, but he was afraid to convert while in Iran for fear of persecution. After coming to America, Toufighi went to church every Sunday, attended prayer meetings, and became a Christian. Toufighi sought asylum based on a well-founded fear of future persecution for apostasy if he returned to Iran. Unfortunately, an immigration judge (IJ) did not believe that Toufighi’s conversion was genuine. When asked, Toufighi described his religion in general terms, and the IJ scoffed that Toufighi lacked specific details and could not even name Jesus Christ’s 12 apostles. The IJ did not believe that Toufighi’s conversion was genuine but rather a vehicle for seeking asylum, and because Toufighi’s alleged apostasy did not exist, he would not face persecution on return to Iran. The IJ determined that Toufighi had not experienced past persecution or established a well-founded fear of future persecution. Toufighi’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of the IJ’s ruling was dismissed for failure to file a support brief on time. Toufighi was granted voluntary departure but did not leave America within 30 days. The following year, Toufighi filed a motion to reopen the IJ’s ruling on two bases: (1) so that he could adjust his status to lawful permanent resident based on marriage, and (2) so that he could present new evidence of changed conditions in Iran. The first basis was not an option due to Toufighi’s failure to depart voluntarily within 30 days and the late filing of the motion to reopen. The BIA did consider the second basis but determined that evidence of Iran’s persecution of Christians was irrelevant because the IJ had ruled that there had been no conversion. On appeal, Toufighi argued that the BIA was incorrect in its view that the IJ had ruled that Toufighi’s conversion was fake, because the IJ had found Toufighi generally credible but doubted whether the conversion was genuine. Toufighi petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen.