By Deki Alula

In an attempt to divert attention from the serious problems facing his administration, Mr. Meles Zenawi wrote a hollow piece of paper sometime ago called “a renewal something” and ordered his employees and party cadres to discuss it for months. Although I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of both the paper and discussions, Ethiopians finally got a temporary relief from the nauseating media coverage of the drama, until now. The new drama these days is entitled “Poverty Reduction Strategy”, which this time is written, choreographed, and directed by the world bank and played by the same actors headed by Mr.. Zenawi.

The world bank’s motive for being behind the latest drama is to increase its lending program to Ethiopia. That institution is fast running out of new “initiatives” to justify more lending since loans made to-date have not shown any improvement in the performance of the economy and/or in improving the livelihood of ordinary Ethiopians. For the unsuspecting, recycling of past loans under a new cover of poverty reduction strategy sounds a new initiative to support increased lending. Mr. Zenawi also considers this as a good diversion from the catastrophe awaiting the forthcoming decision on border demarcation with Eritrea, and also as an endorsement of his “renewal” propaganda. The beneficiaries from this process will be the world bank and Mr. Zenawi, and the losers will be the people of Ethiopia.

Those of us who are deeply disturbed about the unfolding events in Ethiopian politics should also be concerned about the disastrous direction of the government’s economic policies, including the heavy dependence on external borrowing. Loans contracted by Zenawi’s administration over the last ten years exceed all non-military loans contracted by the previous two regimes combined. As a result, Ethiopia’s external debt is equivalent to an entire year’s Gross Domestic Product, or about US$100 per Ethiopian young and old, or equivalent to nearly 20 years of all exports. Future generations are doomed to languish in perpetual poverty as they will use the little export earnings to service such hugh loans rather than to invest for economic development and poverty reduction.

Contrary to common perception, the primary interest of external financial institutions (such as the world bank) is to lend more for their own survival and to promote exports from the industrialized countries rather than to help promote the economic development in third world countries. As demonstrated amply by numerous studies, over fifty years of lending by the world bank throughout the world had been ineffective in promoting sustainable development and in alleviating poverty. In fact the reverse was true, where more lending had driven the poor countries into deeper poverty due to the escalating debt service. An excellent recent example in Africa is Ghana, where over 20 years of heavy lending had done very little to alleviate poverty or to promote sustainable development.

Instead, that country’s future cocoa and mineral exports will be used for servicing loans that did not generate much net economic benefits. While the world bank used Ghana as an “excellent” example to sell its structural adjustment programs to the rest of Africa 15 years ago, it does not mention that country as an example of success story these days because the numerous structural adjustment and project loans over the past twenty years did not have much impact either in alleviating poverty or in promoting sustainable development. This was the main point of President G. Bush’s speech during the United Nations sponsored economic development summit in Mexico two weeks ago, when he emphatically stated that the hugh loans made in the past to the world’s poor had failed miserably in promoting economic development.

You can draw your own conclusions about the effectiveness(or lack of) of world bank lending to Ethiopia by reading on the world wide web the institution’s lending over the past ten years and its proposed lending in the near future. First log on www.world bank.org, and click countries & regions on the left side. Then choose Africa-Sub-Sahara, and select Ethiopia from the list of countries. On the left side of the page, you will see Lending Projects and Lending Pipeline. You can then read summaries of the listed projects (you need acrobat reader to read the summaries, and for that you just download the acrobat reader for free). Pay special attention to the report on a proposed “Food Security Program
Project”, which is one aspect of the poverty reduction strategy. The paper explains how past loans for similar projects elsewhere in Africa have failed, but yet proceeded to recommend similar program for Ethiopia, which I am certain would lead to the same disastrous results.

The hodgepodge components included in that project, in addition to being incoherent, would not make the targeted beneficiaries any more food secure than they are now. More seriously, the project would lead to misallocation of resources, lead the country to adopt unsound economic policy, and promote corruption all the way to the smallest administration units. This is another vivid confirmation of how foreign lending institutions are perpetuating poverty rather than promoting sustainable economic development and poverty alleviation. President Bush was absolutely correct in his remarks at the Mexico summit.

In summary, the big talk that is now going on in Ethiopia about poverty reduction strategy has everything to do with lending more by the world bank (and other external lenders) and very little to do about reducing poverty in Ethiopia. It also has everything to do with Mr.Zenawi’s attempt to get external credibility for his miserably failing administration, and with his scheme to divert domestic attention from the soon to be exposed end results of his conspiracy with Shabia to destroy Ethiopia.

UN NEWS CENTER

NEW YORK – A top United Nations expert on the impact of armed conflict on children said today that during a recent visit to Eritrea and Ethiopia he had seen no systematic use of child soldiers and found no evidence of child abuse in refugee camps.

Briefing the press at UN Headquarters in New York on his mission to the two countries, Olara Otunnu, Secretary-General’s Kofi Annan’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, said that the absence of the “child soldiering” phenomenon was particularly impressive since no other conflict zone he had visited recently had been free of the problem.

In addition, since his field trip had coincided with the “horrific allegations” coming to light in western Africa about the systematic sexual exploitation of children in refugee camps, Mr. Otunnu said he looked for any inkling of such activity and found no reports or evidence of such abuse among women and children housed as either refugees or displaced persons. There appeared to be good coordination between the local authorities and community, and with the international personnel of the UN Mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE).

Mr. Otunnu attributed the fact that there was no military recruitment of children and no evidence of abuse in camps to the control exercised by the local authorities and communities. The locals both organized and monitored life in the camps and distributed provisions, he said, while the international community and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) provided support for their activities.

Furthermore, there was a high level of organization between the local authorities and the local population, particularly in seeing to the needs of vulnerable people, as well as a high level of cooperation based on rapport between UNMEE and the locals.

In moving forward, Mr. Otunnu stressed, there were two imperatives for Ethiopia and Eritrea. The first was to ensure a successful acceptance of the forthcoming decision on 13 April by the Boundary Commission on the disputed border. Acceptance could inaugurate a much-needed, definitive period of peace; both women and children said they wanted it and hoped their leaders would agree.

Secondly, the currently displaced people would need wide support for the resettlement activities that would return them to their homes with the tools to start development projects, Mr. Otunnu said.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

SOSSINA GIRMA,
Petitioner,

VERSUS

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals
February 20, 2002

Before JONES, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sossina Girma, appeals a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (hereinafter “BIA”) denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation.(1) Finding a proper application of the mixed motive standard and substantial evidence to support the BIA’s factual conclusions, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Girma, a native Ethiopian citizen of Amharic ethnicity, entered the United States as a non-immigrant visitor in November 1991, with authorization to remain in the United States until November 11, 1992. After failing to depart as required, Girma filed an application for asylum and withholding of deportation in the fall of 1995. In December 1995, the INS issued an Order to Show Cause.

At her evidentiary hearing in the spring of 1996, Girma testified to the following: On June 30, 1991, Girma was abducted from her home/restaurant in Ethiopia by five masked men wearing army fatigue type clothing. Girma was then blindfolded, placed in a vehicle and driven to a warehouse full of wooden furniture where she was held for two hours and then questioned concerning her involvement with the All Amhara People’s Organization (hereinafter “AAPO”). After she admitted her affiliation with the AAPO, the abductors demanded that Girma pay a ransom for her release. Insisting that she had no money, Girma refused to pay the ransom. Angered by Girma’s refusal, the abductors assaulted and raped her. The abductors then drove Girma approximately 30 miles from the warehouse and set her free. Girma informed the local police of the incident; however, they did not believe her story and informed her that she would be “persecuted” if she continued “telling lies.” Girma was then admitted to a hospital where she remained for approximately one month. Between the time of her release from the hospital in late July and her departure to the United States in November 1991, Girma suffered no further encounters with her abductors.

In support of her testimony and application for asylum, Girma submitted a letter on AAPO letterhead dated July 17, 1991, identifying her as an AAPO member. Although Girma was in Ethiopia on July 17, 1991, the letter strongly advised Girma not to return to Ethiopia and failed to mention that Girma had been raped or beaten on June 30, 1991. Girma also submitted various articles discussing the political conditions in Ethiopia, including an Amnesty International study from 1995 indicating that the AAPO was not formed until 1992.

Based upon the evidence presented, the Immigration Judge (hereinafter “IJ”) denied Girma’s application. In March 2000, the BIA conducted a complete review of the record under a mixed motive analysis and affirmed the IJ’s ruling upon a finding that Girma did not present adequate evidence from which one would reasonably conclude that the harm she suffered was motivated, at least in part, on account of her membership in a particular social group, her actual or imputed political opinions, or any other protected ground. In reaching its decision, the BIA found that Girma failed to adequately establish who attacked her and that they were motivated on account of a protected ground rather than an unprotected one. Girma now challenges the BIA’s decision.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“We have authority to review only an order of the BIA, not the IJ, unless the IJ’s decision has some impact on the BIA’s decision.” Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994)). Here, the BIA did not adopt the decision of the IJ, but conducted a complete review of the record. Thus, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision. The BIA’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, while factual conclusions are reviewed for substantial evidence. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). “Under the substantial evidence standard applicable to review of denials of asylum, we must defer to the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find otherwise.” Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 304. “The BIA’s determination that [Girma] was not eligible for asylum must be upheld if supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Girma argues that the BIA erred in denying her asylum application and that she is entitled to relief because of her past persecution and well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her political opinion and association with the AAPO. Specifically, Girma contends that the BIA incorrectly required her to prove that her persecutors were motivated by a protected ground to the exclusion of other motivations, and therefore, failed to properly apply the mixed motive standard. Furthermore, Girma maintains that she satisfied the evidentiary burden set forth in Elias-Zacarias, by providing some evidence that the persecution she suffered was motivated, at least in part, by a protected ground.

The Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who is a refugee. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(b)(1) (West 1999). The term alien is defined as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(3) (West 1999). An alien is a refugee when he or she “is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country 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.” 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(b)(42) (West 1999).

“The level of proof required to satisfy the requirements for withholding of deportation is more stringent than for asylum purposes.” Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 306 (citations omitted). To avoid deportation, “an alien must establish a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 413, 104 S. Ct. 2489, 2492, 81 L. Ed. 2d 321 (1984). Thus, where an alien fails to satisfy the requirements for asylum, he or she will also have failed to satisfy the requirements for withholding of deportation.

A. Mixed Motive Analysis

Oftentimes, persecutors will convey to their victims the motivation behind the persecution. Other times they may not. Persecution may also result from a mixture of motivations. Although our research reveals no Fifth Circuit case, and neither Girma nor the government have brought one to our attention, which involves a mixed motive analysis in the context of asylum law,(2) the BIA and at least two other circuit courts have applied a mixed motive analysis. In re S-P-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 486 (BIA 1996); Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 1999)(en banc); Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017 (2nd Cir. 1994).

Under a mixed motive analysis, an applicant need not show past persecution or fear of future persecution “solely on account of” a protected ground. Borja, 175 F.3d at 735 (quoting Osorio, 18 F.3d at 1028. Stated another way, “the presence of possible mixed motives need not [necessarily] defeat an asylum claim.” Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (discussing the holding in Borja, 175 F.3d 732). An applicant must only show that one of the persecutor’s motives falls within a statutorily protected ground. Singh v. Ilchert, 63 F.3d 1501, 1509 (9th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, an applicant is not required to provide direct proof of her persecutor’s motives but rather some evidence of it, direct or circumstantial. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S. Ct. at 816-17. The evidence presented, however, must compel a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that the harm suffered by an applicant was motivated, at least in part by, a protected ground. Borja, 175 F.3d at 736.

In the instant case, the BIA concluded that Girma “did not establish by sufficient evidence that those who harmed her were motivated at least in part by a protected ground.” Particularly important in this conclusion, was the BIA’s determination that Girma failed to adequately establish who attacked her. The BIA reached this conclusion because Girma admitted in her evidentiary hearing that her persecutors “could have been government officials or common criminals.” The BIA also found that Girma did not sufficiently establish that her persecutors were motivated by her membership in the AAPO or political opinion, rather than her financial status as a business woman. The BIA reached this conclusion upon a finding that the record indicated that Girma’s persecutors were interested in her money and only began to harm her when she indicated that she could not pay the ransom sum they demanded from her. Furthermore, the BIA noted that Girma “acknowledged that she fears future harm from the government because the government believes that the respondent has money.”

Girma contends that in reaching its decision, the BIA erred in its mixed motive analysis by requiring her to demonstrate, to the exclusion of all other motivating factors, that her persecutors were motivated by a protected ground. Girma bases her argument concerning exclusivity of motivation upon a single sentence in the BIA decision which reads: “In addition, she did not sufficiently establish that her attackers were motivated by the respondent’s membership in the All Amhara People’s Organization (“AAPO”) or political opinion, rather than her financial status as a business woman.”

Although this sentence, read alone, may appear at first to support Girma’s argument, when read in the context of the entire BIA decision, Girma’s argument fails. In its decision, the BIA acknowledged that it was employing a mixed motive analysis, and that under this inquiry, the predominant motive for the abuse is not determinative. The BIA further acknowledged that an applicant for asylum must present evidence sufficient for one to reasonably believe that the harm suffered was motivated in meaningful part by a protected ground. A mixed motive analysis, by its very nature, requires that there be more than one possible factor motivating the persecutor. Here, the BIA examined motivations based upon economics, political opinion and membership in a social group. The BIA also acknowledged that Girma testified that she was kidnaped, questioned, beaten and raped on account of her AAPO membership, but found that “the record indicate[d] that the respondent’s attackers were interested in the respondent’s money and only began to harm her when she indicated that she could not pay the ransom sum.” Although an applicant is not required to present evidence showing, to the exclusion of all other factors, that the persecutor was motivated by a protected ground, the evidence must still be of such weight that it compels the fact-finder to conclude that the applicant suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. Borja, 175 F.3d at 735.

After a complete review of the record, the BIA determined that Girma “did not establish by sufficient evidence that those who harmed her were motivated at least in part by a protected ground.” The BIA’s use of the phrase “rather than,” was not an expression of a mutual exclusivity standard between protected and unprotected grounds but an explanation of its findings concerning the sufficiency of the evidence relative to multiple possible motivating grounds, two of which are protected and one which is not. The analysis performed by the BIA was consistent with a mixed motive inquiry’s requirements under Borja.

B. Substantial Evidence

Girma maintains that she has satisfied her evidentiary burden under Elias-Zacarias by providing some evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that her persecutors were motivated in part by a protected ground. Elias-Zacarias involved a Guatemalan native who fled his country to avoid conscription by Guatemalan guerillas. The issue before the Court was whether forced conscription by a guerilla organization necessarily constituted persecution. At his asylum and withholding of deportation hearing before the IJ, Elias-Zacarias admitted that he did not want to join the guerillas for fear of retaliation from the government. The IJ ultimately denied his application and the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the BIA’s decision and held that a guerilla organization’s coercive acts of conscription constitute persecution on account of political opinion because resisting conscription is, in effect, expressing a political opinion contrary to that of the persecutor, whose political motive underlies the coercive acts.

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that conscription by coercive acts does not necessarily constitute persecution on account of political opinion, as even a person who supports a guerilla organization might resist recruitment for a variety of reasons unrelated to any political opinion. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 482, 112 S. Ct. at 815-16. The Court did not decide whether Elias-Zacarias’s failure to take sides with any political faction constituted the affirmative expression of a political opinion. The Court did hold, however, that even assuming Elias-Zacarias’s failure to politically align himself with one side or the other constituted a political opinion, he must still “establish that the record also compels the conclusion that he has a ‘well-founded fear’ that the guerillas will persecute him because of that political opinion, rather than because of his refusal to fight with them.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S. Ct. at 816. (emphasis in original). In answer to Elias-Zacarias’s objection that he could not provide direct proof of his persecutor’s motives, the Court held that direct proof was not required, but rather some evidence of it, direct or circumstantial, and in order to warrant reversal of the BIA’s determination, the evidence presented must be “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S. Ct. at 816-17.

Reversal of a BIA determination under a substantial evidence standard does not hinge upon the quantity of evidence presented, but rather the quality. To reverse the BIA’s determination, the evidence presented must compel a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that Girma suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution because of a protected ground. Id. Although Girma unquestionably presented some evidence that her persecutors were motivated by a protected ground, the record also contains evidence which questions its credibility. It remains for the BIA, however, to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a grant of asylum. Rivas-Martinez, 997 F.2d at 1148. Here, after conducting a complete review of the record, the BIA properly applied the mixed motive analysis and found the evidence presented to be insufficient to reasonably conclude that the harm suffered by Girma was motivated, at least in part, on account of her membership in a particular social group, her actual or imputed political opinions, or any other protected ground. Any disagreement we might have with the BIA’s evaluation of the facts is not a sufficient ground for reversal. A reasonable fact-finder could have found the evidence presented by Girma sufficient to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. We do not find, however, that the evidence presented would compel a fact-finder to do so. Accordingly, we find that the BIA decision reflects a proper application of the mixed motive standard and is supported by substantial evidence.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the decision of the BIA is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

1. Although this opinion refers only to Sossina Girma, the case involves a joint deportation proceeding where Sossina Girma’s request for asylum and withholding of deportation was joined with that of her minor daughter, Elshaday Abdo, who is seeking derivative asylum on the basis of Girma’s application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3).

2. Girma suggests that our decision in Rivas-Martinez v. INS, 997 F.2d 1143 (5th Cir. 1993), involved a mixed motive case. However, that case recognized that when an asylum applicant has voiced a non-political excuse to avoid conscription, he is not thereafter precluded from demonstrating that the conscriptors either knew or would learn of the applicant’s political opposition by extraneous evidence. Rivas-Martinez, 997 F.2d at 1148.

A team of researchers from UC Berkeley and the Los Alamos branch of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics (IGPP) announced in July the discovery of fossil bones and teeth belonging to the earliest human ancestors yet discovered—a chimpanzee-sized hominid who walked the wooded highlands in what is now a desert region of Ethiopia between 5.2 and 5.8 million years ago.

The team was led by Berkeley Professors Desmond Clark and Tim White, Berkeley graduate student Yohannes Haile-Selassie and IGPP Los Alamos geologist Giday WoldeGabriel, with technical and financial support from IGPP Los Alamos and funding from the National Science Foundation. They found fossil bones that predate the oldest previously discovered human ancestor by more than a million years. The hominid is part of a newly named subspecies of early man called Ardipithecus.

The discovery is an outcome of the Middle Awash Paleoanthropological and Geological Project headquartered at IGPP Los Alamos—an international, multidisciplinary effort whose objective is the elucidation of human origins and evolution. IGPP scientists associated with the project have, under the leadership of Dr. WoldeGabriel, supported the paleoanthropological research through study of the volcanic and tectonic evolution of the Middle Awash area in Ethiopia, recovering evidence for early hominid origins and evolution, and placing this evidence in controlled spatial, temporal, and environmental contexts. They have assessed the geological forces responsible for rifting, volcanism and other geomorphic processes that have resulted in accumulations of more than 500 meters of sediment and volcanic rock on the rift floor over the past 15 million years.

All geological samples collected during the field investigations were brought to Los Alamos for analysis. WoldeGabriel and current IGPP Director Dr. Grant Heiken used electron microscopes and microprobes to study the samples, collaborating with other laboratories in establishing dates for the geological samples—which, in turn, confirmed the antiquity of the hominid find. Over the past ten years five other hominid species from the region have been discovered and dated in this manner, making the Middle Awash Project the most successful effort of its kind in the world.

Encouraged by Dr. Chick Keller, former director of IGPP Los Alamos, this international and multidisciplinary project has fostered first class research collaborations among sister institutions and scientists from both LANL, Berkeley and other universities and research laboratories in Ethiopia, the U.S. and Europe.

Dr. WoldeGabriel and other IGPP colleagues characterize the newly discovered hominid’s environments as 1,500 feet higher in elevation than today, much cooler and wetter, and subject to regular showers of thick volcanic ash.

“It’s hard to imagine that life would go on under such hostile conditions,” WoldeGabriel said. “Ardipithecus and the other animals inhabiting the region were real survivors.”

Haile Gebreselassie, one of the world’s all-time great distance runners, is set to make his international half marathon debut in Bristol in just over two weeks.

The Ethiopian, who currently holds both the 5,000m (12:39.36) and 10,000m (26:22.75) world records, has indicated for some time that he would relish a new challenge and his national Federation has confirmed that a new chapter of the multiple World and Olympic champion’s illustrious career will begin at the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships in Bristol on Sunday October 7.

Despite concentrating most of his efforts on the track and being relatively inexperienced at longer distances, Gebrselassie was able to win this year’s fiercely competitive Ethiopian Championship and Trials. The world will now be watching in anticipation as he makes his debut over this longer distance on the streets of Bristol.

Gebrselassie may well use the IAAF World Half Marathon as the starting point to his eventual transition to the marathon, following in the footsteps of his great rival, Kenyan Paul Tergat. Tergat hoped he would be the first man to break the one-hour barrier for the half marathon in the UK at last weekend’s Great North Run. After falling half a minute short of this target, the way has been left open for Gebrselassie to put Bristol firmly on the map by not only chasing victory but achieving the sub 60-minute time on the city’s flat course.

MEANWHILE, JON Brown has ruled himself out of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Team for the Championships.

Brown has been thwarted by injuries since finishing fourth in the Sydney Olympic Marathon last year but felt he was returning to top form in time for the Bristol race. However, after flying into Britain last week from his Canadian home to complete his preparations at the Great North Run, Brown became unwell. He finished 13th in 65:25, almost four minutes outside his best.

Brown said: “I was disappointed with my form in the Great North Run and feel that I will not be able to do either myself or my country justice in the World Half Marathon.”

Reserve, Danny Robinson has been called into the team to make his Great Britain debut. Robinson finished fifth in the Trial race in Glasgow in August.

(The IAAF World Half Marathon Championships in Bristol have received Lottery funding of up to £85,000 from UK Sport’s World Class Events Programme.)

– UK Sports