United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Berihun ASSFAW, Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

March 10, 1995

ARGUED: Antoinette Josepha Rizzi, LAW OFFICES OF ANTOINETTE J. RIZZI, Arlington, VA, for Petitioner. Joan Estelle Smiley, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

I.

A.

B.

II.

III.

AFFIRMED

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Makonnen v. INS

Janis M. Clay, Minneapolis, MN, argued, for appellant.

Richard M. Evans, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, argued (Frank W. Hunger, U.S. Asst. Atty. Gen., and David J. Kline, Asst. Director, on the brief), for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, LAY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
1

Elizabeth Makonnen petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the BIA or Board) denying her application for political asylum under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158 (1988 & Supp. V 1993) and withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1253(h) (Supp. V 1993), granting her request for voluntary departure instead, and denying her motion to remand her case to the Immigration Judge for consideration of additional evidence. We grant the petition and remand to the Board for further proceedings.

I.
2

Makonnen, an Ethiopian national and a member of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), entered the United States on September 21, 1988, on a non-immigrant student visa. She accepted employment without Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) authorization. Consequently, an order to show cause alleging deportability under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a)(9) (1988) was issued on July 31, 1990, with a telephone hearing held on January 29, 1991. Makonnen admitted the factual allegations in the order and conceded deportability, but requested asylum under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1158, withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1253(h), or, alternatively, voluntary deportation, asserting that she feared persecution if forced to return to Ethiopia.
3

After a final administrative hearing on March 25, 1992, the Immigration Judge noted that Makonnen had supported the OLF when she was a child and had assisted her father in its activities, opposing the former Marxist government. Since her arrival in the United States Makonnen had attended monthly OLF meetings, where she taught youngsters about Oromo culture and cooked ethnic food. Makonnen believed that the Ethiopian government was aware of her OLF activities, and for this reason she feared persecution if she were forced to return to Ethiopia. The judge noted that
4

respondent’s claim principally rises and falls on her own testimony and general background information concerning the present conditions in Ethiopia. The court takes administrative notice that the Mengistu regime fell in May 1991 and that the respondent’s previous fear of returning to Ethiopia no long[er] exists…. While the respondent seems to say that she fears the general ethnic conflict and unrest existing in Ethiopia at the present time, this information is insufficient to establish eligibility for Asylum per se.
5

In re Makonnen, No. A XX-XXX-XXX, Oral Decision of the Immigration Judge at 6 (Mar. 25, 1992). The judge denied Makonnen’s request for asylum and for withholding of deportation, but granted voluntary deportation with an accompanying order of deportation should she fail to leave the United States within the period prescribed for voluntary departure.
6

Makonnen appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and moved the Board to remand her case for a further hearing
7

based on material evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the final deportation hearing–departure of the OLF from the coalition government and a pattern of human rights abuses by the new government in Ethiopia, including the arrest and arbitrary detention of Makonnen’s own father just days after Makonnen’s March 25, 1992 hearing.
8

Brief of Petitioner at 2. The Board dismissed the appeal and denied Makonnen’s motion to remand.
9

Petitioner timely filed a petition for review, and requested leave to adduce additional evidence under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c). In her petition, Makonnen argues that the Board erred (1) in applying a stricter standard to her political asylum claim than that mandated by law, (2) in rejecting her claim for asylum based on political opinion because she had not shown that all ethnic Oromos were being persecuted, (3) in denying procedural due process by refusing her the opportunity for a hearing on evidence crucial to her case, (4) in failing to find that, more likely than not, Makonnen would be subject to persecution in Ethiopia, or at least had the requisite fear necessary for a grant of asylum, and (5) in refusing to grant her motion to remand for consideration of her additional evidence.

II.
10

Before discussing Makonnen’s issues, we first supply some general background information based upon published studies.1 The OLF was established in Ethiopia in July 1973. As the most recent manifestation of resistance to central government control, the OLF is in the tradition of the Azebo-Raya revolt of 1928-30, the Oromo Independence Movement of 1936, and the Bale revolt of 1964-70. The OLF’s stated goal is autonomy or independence for the southern provinces of Ethiopia, known by OLF partisans as Oromoland.2 While the Oromo (Galla) people, Ethiopia’s largest ethnic group comprising close to forty percent of the population, are dispersed throughout the country, the southern provinces are considered their heartland. The Oromo penetrated Ethiopia from the south in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and by 1600 established control over the regions they inhabited. Not until the late nineteenth century were they conquered by the Kingdom of Ethiopia. While many Oromo assimilated with the politically dominant Amhara, the Oromo possess distinct physical characteristics and have their own language.
11

The OLF first began operations against the Ethiopian government in Harrege province in 1974. These actions continued when it became apparent that the Dirg, the Provisional Military Administration Council of the Ethiopian government, would not allow use of the Oromo language in newspapers or at school and when the group was prevented from running its own peasant association. While operations spread to Welega province, the OLF apparently had only scattered successes in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Its inability to mobilize popular support has been attributed to a failure “to organize an effective antigovernment movement, to convince the majority of Oromo people that separation was a viable political alternative, or to sustain military operations in … geographically separated areas.” Thomas P. Ofcansky & LaVerle Berry, U.S. Dep’t of State Ethiopia: A Country Study 247 (1993). From 1989-91 the OLF achieved more success than it previously had in the struggle against the Mengistu regime, although at least some of this was attributable to the support of other resistance groups, including the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the umbrella Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), of which the TPLF is a major constituent.
12

After the fall of the Mengistu government in 1991, the OLF, the EPRDF, and other groups formed a coalition regime. “Relations between the OLF and the EPRDF,” however, “seem to have been ambivalent even at the best of times because the Oromo were deeply suspicious of the ultimate designs of the Tigrayan leadership.” Ofcansky & Berry, supra, at 311. In June 1992, the OLF withdrew from the coalition government due to alleged EPRDF intimidation of its members and manipulation of the regional election process. According to a State Department report that Makonnen has called to our attention, and which she wishes to have the Board consider, the regional elections
13

were flawed by numerous irregularities, including fraud, harassment, intimidation, and political assassination–and the OLF forces took up arms against the Government. In subsequent clashes, the EPRDF forces defeated the OLF units and, at the beginning of 1993, the [Transitional Government of Ethiopia] held more than 20,000 OLF prisoners in several camps. During 1993 most of these detainees were released; the remaining 1,200 are to face criminal charges. The OLF remains outside the Government; much of its senior leadership is abroad.
14

U.S. Dep’t of State, Ethiopia Human Rights Practice, 1993 (Jan. 31, 1994) (citation omitted). This, then, is the general background for petitioner’s claim to asylum.

III.
15

Petitioner first contends that the Board erred in applying a stricter standard to her asylum claim than that mandated by law. She also asserts that the Board erroneously rejected her claim based on political opinion because she has not shown that all ethnic Oromos are being persecuted. We combine these contentions for purposes of our discussion. Both Makonnen and the Board agree that the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(42) (1988), set out in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 448-49, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1221-22, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987), is less stringent than the “more likely than not” requirement for withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1253(h). Both cite the Board’s opinion, which in turn cited Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 439 (1987), to the effect that “[a]n applicant for asylum has established a well-founded fear if he shows that a reasonable person in her [sic] circumstances would fear persecution for one of the five grounds specified in the Act,” namely, race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In re Makonnen, No. AXX-XXX-XXX, Order at 3 (Nov. 18, 1993), quoted in Brief for Respondent at 23 and cited in Brief of Petitioner at 24.
16

Use of the appropriate standard by the Board is a question of law, which we review de novo. In its own review of the case, the BIA noted that
17

[t]he immigration judge determined that the respondent failed to sustain the burden of proof and so denied the requested relief…. Following [a] recitation of the respondent’s evidence, the immigration judge … made an adverse credibility finding…. The immigration judge also concluded that the respondent had not established a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the Act. The immigration judge found that her fear stemmed from the general ethnic conflict in Ethiopia and such did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution.
18

In re Makonnen, No. AXX-XXX-XXX, Order at 3. The Board concurred with the Immigration Judge’s findings, specifically noting that Makonnen “fears the overall ethnic conflict in Ethiopia and such does not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the Act unless there is some evidence that [Makonnen] will be singled out for persecution or that all members of the Oromo ethnic group are being persecuted.” Id. at 4-5. Makonnen suggests that this is where the Board erred. Her position is supported by 8 C.F.R. Sec. 208.13(b)(2)(i) (1994),3 which states that
19

[i]n evaluating whether the applicant has sustained his burden of proving that he has a well-founded fear of persecution, the Asylum Officer or Immigration Judge shall not require the applicant to provide evidence that he would be singled out individually for persecution if:
20

(A) He establishes that there is a pattern or practice in his country of nationality or last habitual residence of persecution of groups of persons similarly situated to the applicant on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; and
21

(B) He establishes his own inclusion in and identification with such group of persons such that his fear of persecution upon return is reasonable.
22

The regulations do not define what constitutes a “pattern or practice … of persecution.” We would take this language to mean something on the order of organized or systematic or pervasive persecution. In any event, we believe that for the Board to construe the regulation to require a showing of persecution of all the members of the applicant’s group represents an unreasonable reading of the “pattern or practice” language. The BIA thus was incorrect as a matter of law in holding that, if Makonnen is unable to show she would be singled out for persecution, her claim for asylum must fail unless there is evidence that all members of the ethnic Oromo group (or of the OLF) are being persecuted.
23

The Board also failed to consider whether Makonnen might have a well-founded fear of persecution even if she is unable to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of the Oromo people or of the OLF. The Ninth Circuit has noted that 8 C.F.R. Sec. 208.13(b)(2)(i) “does not purport to cover the entire range of persecution related to group membership. Rather, the regulation leaves the standards governing non-pattern or practice cases to be developed through case law.” Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 853 (9th Cir.1994). In such cases,
24

although members of the disfavored groups are not threatened by systematic persecution of the group’s entire membership, the fact of group membership nonetheless places them at some risk. That risk can rise to the level required for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution either as a result of an individual’s activities in support of the group, or because an individual is a member of a certain element of the group that is itself at greater risk of persecution than is the membership of the group as a whole.
25

….
26

In the non-pattern or practice cases, there is a significant correlation between the asylum petitioner’s showing of group persecution and the rest of the evidentiary showing necessary to establish a particularized threat of persecution. Specifically, the more egregious the showing of group persecution–the greater the risk to all members of the group–the less evidence of individualized persecution must be adduced.
27

Id. at 853. In the present case, the Board failed to consider the possibility of non-pattern-and-practice persecution.
28

Similarly, the BIA required evidence of persecution of all members of the Oromo ethnic group, yet it appears Makonnen bases her claim primarily on her active membership in the OLF. The government notes that Makonnen stated as part of her asylum application that “[b]eing an Oromo in Ethiopia was the main ground for me and my family’s mistreatment by the gov[ernmen]t.” Certified Administrative Record at 390. The government argues that Makonnen “did not tell the Board in what ‘group’ she claimed inclusion,” and that “her testimony was peppered with comments about the alleged persecution of the Oromo people.” Brief for Respondent at 28. What the government’s own brief makes crystal clear, however, is that the petitioner’s grasp of English, while certainly better than our grasp of Gallinya,4 is not sufficiently precise to allow the Board’s conclusion “that–when the alien claimed persecution because of her inclusion in a group–she meant inclusion in the Oromo ethnic group.” Id.5 Indeed, the close identification between the OLF and the Oromo people makes it probable that an OLF member would fail to maintain a clear verbal distinction between the two. Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that Makonnen sufficiently apprised the Immigration Judge and the Board that her fear of persecution was based on her connections with the OLF, and not merely on her status as an ethnic Oromo. The Board erred to the extent that its decision rested only on Makonnen’s status as an ethnic Oromo, and failed to consider her membership and activities in the OLF.
29

The Board also stated that, “although we do not categorically hold that entitlement to asylum relief can not be established by an individual based upon actions taken following entry into this country, we find that there must be specific evidence that a government would target an individual outside of its borders for persecution.” In re Makonnen, No. AXX-XXX-XXX, Order at 5. The BIA has itself commented on the poor quality of the evidence in this case, yet its action here severely restricts the utility of uncontroverted evidence of the petitioner’s activities in the United States, which Makonnen has offered as part of her factual showing in support of her claim of a well-founded fear of persecution if she is forced to return to Ethiopia. We hold that the Board’s treatment of this evidence was unduly restrictive and reflected an incorrect understanding of the law. Congress, in defining “refugee,”6 put no limitation on what might constitute evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution. While the Board is “entitled to a presumption of regularity,” see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), it may not create “new law” under the guise of assessing evidence. In this respect, too, we conclude the Board erred.
30

We hold that the BIA was incorrect as a matter of law in suggesting that it must be shown that all ethnic Oromos were being persecuted, in not considering the possibility of non-pattern-and-practice persecution, in holding that Makonnen’s claim was based entirely on her Oromo ethnicity rather than on her membership in the OLF or her adherence to OLF beliefs, and in requiring specific evidence that the Ethiopian government would target an individual outside its borders for persecution. For these reasons alone, we believe the case must be remanded to the Board for further consideration.

V.
31

We now turn to the Board’s denial of Makonnen’s motion that her case be remanded to the Immigration Judge for consideration of additional evidence. Makonnen also has filed a motion with this Court for leave to adduce her additional evidence under the terms of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c).7 The government argues that the standards of federal agency review set forth in Sec. 2347(c) apply only to the extent they do not conflict with the provisions of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1105a (1988 & Supp. V 1993), which apply specifically to judicial review of final orders of deportation.8 In this case, according to the government, there is a conflict between the sections.
32

Section 1105a(a)(4) requires that a petition for review be “determined solely upon the administrative record upon which the deportation order is based….” Section 2347(c) necessarily requires the existence of evidence which is not contained within the administrative record and plainly conflicts with Section 1105a(a)(4) which directs the Court never to look outside the administrative record.
33

Makonnen v. INS, No. 93-4010, Respondent’s Opposition to Alien’s Motion for Leave to Adduce Additional Evidence at 3 (8th Cir. April 14, 1994) (Respondent’s Opposition).
34

Sister circuits have considered and rejected the government’s argument. In Osaghae v. INS, the Seventh Circuit held that
35

[t]here is no inconsistency [between Sec. 1105a and 2347(c) ]. True, we are not to take evidence and base our decision on some mixture of that evidence with the evidence that was before the Board. But if the administrative record is inadequate because the Board has failed without justification to consider newly discovered evidence, we can remand for the creation of an adequate record.
36

Osaghae v. INS, 942 F.2d 1160, 1162 (7th Cir.1991); see also Fleurinor v. INS, 585 F.2d 129, 132 (5th Cir.1978); Coriolan v. INS, 559 F.2d 993, 1003 (5th Cir.1977). We here adopt the reasoning in Osaghae and hold that 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1105a does not preclude a remand to the Board under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c).
37

Utilizing the criteria enunciated in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c), we observe that any additional evidence sought to be introduced must be material, and reasonable grounds must be shown for the initial failure to adduce it before the agency. The first piece of additional evidence proffered by Makonnen is a four-page letter dated January 22, 1994, written to Makonnen by her father, Makonnen Daka. This was penned upon his release from a twenty-one month incommunicado detention by the Ethiopian government, and details the facts of his seizure, holding, and release. Makonnen argues that the letter is material, bearing precisely on “the likelihood of Makonnen’s being subject to persecution if forced to return to Ethiopia…. [T]he treatment of relatives, particularly immediate family members who share one’s political beliefs, is highly material to one’s own likelihood of persecution.” Makonnen v. INS, No. 93-4010, Reply of Elizabeth Makonnen to Respondent’s Opposition to Alien’s Motion for Leave to Adduce Additional Evidence at 6-7 (8th Cir. June 9, 1994) (Reply to Respondent’s Opposition). The INS argues that petitioner, “whose asylum claim is premised on her cooking, day secretarial work and babysitting for the OLF in the United States[,] is not similarly situated to her father,” and points out that no evidence had been presented of any persecution of Makonnen’s mother or other family members. Makonnen, Respondent’s Opposition at 5.
38

The issue of materiality has come before this Court in a similar context on a prior occasion, in Alsheweikh v. INS, 990 F.2d 1025 (8th Cir.1993). In that case we rejected the proffered additional evidence because of its “inconclusive, speculative, or duplicative” nature. Id. at 1027. Materiality requires both relevance to the matter at hand and probative value. Moreover, the evidence should be more than merely repetitive or cumulative of evidence already in the record. Here the letter relates to a member of Makonnen’s immediate family who, like the petitioner, has espoused the political views of the OLF and has been active in the OLF’s cause. The variance between the services performed by Makonnen Daka and those rendered by his daughter for the OLF does not affect the materiality of the letter under consideration in view of their familial relationship, similar political views, and active participation in the OLF. The letter is relevant to Makonnen’s claim for asylum and probative on the issue of whether she has a well-founded fear of persecution. It does not duplicate prior evidence and is not inconclusive or speculative. We believe it clearly passes the materiality test.
39

Alsheweikh held that reasonable grounds for failure to present relevant evidence were not shown as the evidence involved “was readily available during [the] deportation proceedings.” Id. Here, the letter from Makonnen’s father could not have been in her possession at the time of the hearing, not only because of the date on which it was written, but because of an underlying cause, Makonnen Daka’s incommunicado detention. As the statutory standards have been satisfied, we grant leave under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c) for petitioner to adduce this evidence.
40

Petitioner further seeks to adduce as evidence the United States State Department Country Report on Ethiopia of February 1, 1994, “addressing, inter alia, the current treatment in Ethiopia of persons who support the Oromo Liberation Front.” Makonnen, Reply to Respondent’s Opposition at 2. Conversely, the government merely argues that the reports ” ‘do not establish that [Makonnen] ha[s] a well-founded fear of political persecution.’ ” Respondent’s Opposition at 6 n. 4 (quoting Alsheweikh, 990 F.2d at 1027) (alteration in Respondent’s Opposition). In Alsheweikh, however, the evidence of political dissident persecution was rejected because “Alsheweikh testified under oath that he did not belong to any political organizations.” Alsheweikh, 990 F.2d at 1027. Here, Makonnen is an acknowledged member of the OLF, and the evidence she proffered relates to the treatment in Ethiopia of those who support that organization. The report is relevant, has considerable probative value, and does not duplicate material already in evidence. We hold that it is material. As in the case of Makonnen Daka’s letter, the date of the report shows that it was not available to Makonnen during her deportation proceedings. Again, we conclude that Makonnen is entitled to have this evidence considered by the agency.
41

Makonnen’s motion for leave to adduce additional evidence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c) is granted. In light of this ruling, we decline to decide whether the Board abused its discretion by denying Makonnen’s motion that her case be remanded to the Immigration Judge. On remand from this Court, we leave to the Board’s sound discretion the question whether the case should be remanded to the Immigration Judge for initial consideration of Makonnen’s additional evidence.

VI.
42

The conclusions we have reached concerning the issues discussed above make it unnecessary for us to address the other issues Makonnen has raised. For the reasons stated, we grant Makonnen’s motion to adduce her additional evidence, grant her petition for review, and remand this case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1

The U.S. State Department studies cited in this opinion, although not considered in the administrative proceedings, provide a general historical background of the relationship of the OLF and the Ethiopian Government. We make reference to these studies in this part of our opinion only in terms of providing a general background for petitioner’s claim to asylum
2

The OLF initially called for the “total liberation of the entire Oromo nation from Ethiopian colonialism.” Thomas P. Ofcansky & LaVerle Berry, U.S. Dep’t of State Ethiopia: A Country Study 247 (1993). Later, it worked “for the establishment of an independent Democratic Republic of Oromia, which would include all of central and southern Ethiopia, excluding the Ogaden and Omo River regions.” Id
3

This regulation became effective on October 1, 1990. See Asylum and Withholding of Deportation Procedures, 55 Fed.Reg. 30,675 (1990)
4

Gallinya is the Cushitic language of the Oromo (Galla) people. See Ethiopia in 10 Encyclopedia Americana 620, 623 (1984)
5

In support of its contention, the INS cites to Makonnen’s testimony at her deportation hearing before the Immigration Judge: Transcript at 20 (“new government is still killing Oromo people”), Transcript at 31 (“there’s, uh, some paper that, um, say a lot of killing and people missing going on in the Oromo”), and Transcript at 66 (“they arresting Oromo’s people”). While the first presumably refers to the tribal group, the second and third could as easily apply to the region or to the OLF itself. Moreover, within the portions of the record cited by the INS, Makonnen makes numerous references to the OLF and related organizations: Transcript at 24 (“he’s active member of Oromo”), Transcript at 25 (“we Oromos … have … a group”), Transcript at 32 (Union of Oromo, North America), Transcript at 35-37 (discussion of the OLF), Transcript at 53-54 (discussion of the OLF), Transcript at 54-55 (discussion of Union of Oromo, North America), Transcript at 55-58 (discussion of the OLF), Transcript at 62 (OLF), Transcript at 64 (OLF), Transcript at 65-66 (OLF)
6

According to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(42)(A) (1988) the term “refugee” includes:

any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who 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.
7

28 U.S.C. Sec. 2347(c) (1988) states:

If a party to a proceeding to review applies to the court of appeals in which the proceeding is pending for leave to adduce additional evidence and shows to the satisfaction of the court that–

(1) the additional evidence is material; and

(2) there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce the evidence before the agency;

the court may order the additional evidence and any counterevidence the opposite party desires to offer to be taken by the agency. The agency may modify its findings of fact, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and may modify or set aside its order, and shall file in the court the additional evidence, the modified findings or new findings, and the modified order or the order setting aside the original order.
8

8 U.S.C. Sec. 1105a(a)(4) (1988 & Supp. V 1993) states:

The procedure prescribed by, and all the provisions of chapter 158 of title 28, shall apply to, and shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for, the judicial review of all final orders of deportation, heretofore or hereafter made against aliens within the United States pursuant to administrative proceedings under section 1252(b) of this title or comparable provisions of any prior Act, except that–

….

(4) … except as provided in clause (B) of paragraph (5) of this subsection, the petition shall be determined solely upon the administrative record upon which the deportation order is based and the Attorney General’s findings of fact, if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive.

By Fikre Tolossa

“The Tigreans had Aksum, but what could that mean to the Gurage? The Agew had Lalibela, but what could that mean to the Oromo? The Gonderes had castles, but what could that mean to the Wolayita?” Meles Zenawi

When I read the above statement made by the President of the Transitional Government of Ethiopia, Ato Meles Zenawi, in an interview with Professor Donald Levine (ER, September 1992). I started wondering whether it had some germs of truth. I asked myself, “In spite of their differences, don’t all Ethiopians have a sense of togetherness, some objects of pride which they share and common factors which bind them together or unite them, such as history, religion, culture, language, geography, socio-economic and political life? My answer to this question was in the affirmative.

For the sake of clarity, I will divide the peoples of Ethiopia into their two major component parts: Semitic and Hamitic, and see how they relate to each other. I will take the Tigre, the Amhara and the Gurage as examples of the Semitic group; the Oromo, the Somali, the Afar, and the West Sidama or Ometo as examples of the Hamitic. When we observe these groups closely, we realize that they are directly or indirectly related to each other.

The Tigre, the Amhara and the Gurage share the same ancestors. They are close relatives, so to speak. Northern Ethiopia, the original home of the two major Semitic Ethiopians, the Amhara and the Tigre, however, had been inhabited by Hamitic Ethiopians for at least three thousand years before the South Arabians, the other ancestors of the Tigre and the Amhara, immigrated from South Arabia to Northern Ethiopia, to what we today call Tigre and Eritrea.

The indigenous inhabitants of Tigre and Eritrea 4000 years ago were Hamitic Ethiopians. The Agew and the Beja, for instance, are the descendants of such Hamitic Ethiopians. Not only these Hamitic Ethiopians had their own civilizations built on kingdoms, according to some experts of African history, they were also the forefathers of the Pharaoes and the founders of the Egyptian civilization. Whether this is a fact or myth, one thing remains true. These Hamitic Ethiopians had their own civilization and a close relationship with the ancient Egyptians and the South Arabians. These Ethiopians had formed governments, wrote in their own alphabets and built stone houses, altars and statues. They worshiped their own and foreign gods and were engaged in commerce. According to Sergew Hable Selassie in his book, Ancient and Medieval Ethiopian History to 1270. they exported to Egypt rare minerals such as Lapis Lazuli, electrum, silver, eye cosmetic known as kool (in both Ethiopian and Egyptian languages), gold, gold dust and antimony, as well as animals and their byproducts. Moreover, they exported to Egypt wood and wood byproducts such as incense, myrrh, balsam, boomerangs, ebony, gums, cinnamon and frankincense.

At least some time before 1000 BC, these Hamitic Ethiopians started mixing with people of Semitic stock from South Arabia. The Semitic settlers brought with them the products of their own civilization including agriculture, irrigation system, architecture, language and religion and blended them with those of the indigenous Hamitic peoples of Ethiopia. The blending of these two Hamitic and semitic peoples and their civilizations gradually created the ethnic groups that eventually evolved as Tigreans, Eritreans and Amharas, and formed the civilization of Ethiopia, with Aksum as its center. The word “Aksum” is a further evidence to the blending of the Hamitic and Semitic peoples of Ethiopia, for it is made up of both Hamitic and Semitic terms. “Ak” or “aku” in Hamitic or the Agew language, according to J. Tubiana (quoted by Sergew Hable Selassie) means “water.” Sum “which is closer to the Amharic” shum,” in Ge’ez and Tigrigna means “chief.” The literal translation of “Aksum” is, therefore, “The Water of the Chief.” It is said that to this day, there is a place not far from Aksum known as “Mai Shum” in Tigrigna and Ge’ez, meaning the water of the chief, referring to a water well. The fact that the word “Aksum” consists of Kushitic and Semitic terms proves and symbolizes the blending of the two Hamitic and Semitic civilizations and of the two racial groups which make up the majority of the peoples of Ethiopia.

Since Aksum is the cradle of Ethiopian civilization consisting of both Hamitic and Semitic elements, every architecture and each work of art in Tigrai, is therefore, the result of the mixing of both Hamitic and Semitic civilizations. Hence, both the Hamitic and the Semitic peoples of Ethiopia, including the Agew, the Beja, the Welayita, the Afar, the Oromo, the Somali, the Gurage and the Amhara, have every reason to be a part and a parcel of the Aksumite civiliza tion and to be proud of it. By the way, the Welamo (the plural of Welayta) have a special reason to relate to both the Gondere and Aksumite civilizations: Their first dynasty is supposed to have originated from Damot, near Gojam, during the reign of Yekuno Amlak around the year 1268; and their second dynasty, from Tigrai during the reign of Amde-Tsion were Mikael and Girma respectively. (G.W.B. Huntingford, History of the Galla of Ethiopia ) This chapter of the Welaita history is obviously overlooked by Ato Meles Zenawi.

The mixing of the indigenous Hamitic Ethiopians and the South Arabian immigrants, as mentioned above, resulted in the evolution of the peoples of Tigrai and Eritrea. The Amhara and Gurage belong to the two ethnic group. As I indicated on my article on Amhara contributions to Ethiopian civilization, the Amhara are the offshoots of the Tigreans, for they originated from Tigrai with their Emperor Dil Ne’ad, the last Aksumite emperor. Running away from the persecution of the Zagwe usurper, Mera Tekle Haimanot, in the 11th Century, Emperor Dil Ne’ad and a number of his people found their way to central Ethiopia and settled in Lasta, Gagn, Gonder, Gojam and Shoa. When they spread Amharic at the court of the Zagwe emperors and it was spoken by the imperial family and their soldiers from various ethnic groups, the Amhara started being identified with it.

During their 800 years of “exile” outside Tigrai and Eritrea (formerly known as Baher Medir), the Amharas never forgot their original home, Aksum, Their emperors considered their dynasty as the continuation of the Solomonic Dynasty. They returned often to Aksum to be coronated in accordance with the tradition of their ancestors, the Tigrean emperors. Both the nobles and the common Amharas considered Aksum as the cradle of their civilization and as their holy city to which they went on pilgrimage whenever they could. What is more, in the same way as their Tigreans ancestors, the Amhara used Ge’ez as the language of their literature and liturgy. To the present day, the Amhara share with their Tigrean ances tors the same history, religion, church music, liturgy, culture, literature, customs, food, art, secular pentatonic music, clothes, agriculture, architecture, etc.

Contrary to Ato Meles Zenawi’s assertion, the Gurage too, have every reason to be proud of the Aksumite civilization or Northern Ethiopian civilization, because, according to G.W.B. Huntingford and other scholars, they originated in the 15th Century from Gura, Tigrai under the leadership of the Tigrean Azmach Sebhat who went to the south on a military expedition. The word “ge” means near. Gurage means near Gura, the area which still exists in Eritrea by that very name. Even if we disregard this version of the origin of the Gurage, there are other reasons why the Gurage could relate themselves to Aksum. Though their language, Guragigna, is not the same as Tigrigna, both Guragigna and Tigrigna belong to the same Semitic family. Those Gurages who were not Islamized share the same religion as the Tigre. They belong to the same Orthodox church of the Tigreans and consider Aksum as their holy city. Their priests speak and pray in Ge’ez. They celebrate the same holidays as the peoples of Tigrai and Eritrea. Both peoples share a number of cultural traits. Even the Hamitic Agew had a number of things in common, including religion, with the Tigre, Amhara and Gurage.

One of the descendants of the ancient Hamitic peoples of Ethiopia, the Agew, as pointed out earlier, were participants of the Aksumite civilization. Later, (between the years 1030 and 1270) when they were in power after having overthrown the Solomonic Dynasty, they became dominant once again. Their emperors, however, did not totally uproot their Aksumite heritage. They pursued Aksumite politics, religion and culture in central Ethiopia. Like the previous emperors and empresses of Aksum, they subscribed to the legend of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon. They were the adherents of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and as such, they practiced the liturgy and observed all the religious holidays including Meskel, Timket, Kedus Yohannes and all the days of the saints.

Some of their emperors were canonized as saints, the same category as Aksumite and, later, Amhara emperors. Their ecclesiastical language was Ge’ez. Their clergy were trained by the same traditional schools which educated the Tigre and Amhara clergy. Like Aksumite emperors, Zagwe emperors built churches in Aksum and Roha. The rock-hewn churches of Lasta and Lalibela, for instance, exhibit similarities with Aksumite architectures and were erected under their influence. For Orthodox Christian Oromos, Gurages, Welamos, Sidamas, Amharas and Tigreans, they are considered to be the second Jerusalem, and as such, a holy place of pilgrimage upto the present time. Since the Amhara held key positions in the Zagwe government during the reign of Lalibela the Great at the zenith of the Zagwe civilization, Lalibela occupies a special place in their hearts.

The Hamitic peoples of Ethiopia including the Oromo, the Somali, the Afar, the Sidama and the rest are related to each other and to the Semitic peoples as well, directly or indirectly. The Hamitic peoples share in common every Hamit ic heritage attributed to them. They share the same origin of language and religion. They also share the same history, economic and cultural life.

According to Oromo and Somali traditions of origin the earliest home of both the Oromo and the Somali was South Arabia until both of them migrated to Somalia. As a matter of fact, one version of the origin of the word “Oromo” is said to have been derived from the name of a tribal leader who was the son of Omer of Ghellad from Arabia, who crossed the sea to Berbera and settled in Africa. The Somalis, too, somehow trace their origin in Arabia. An important Somali tribe, the Ishaak, for instance, claim that they are the descendants of an Arab Sheik, Ishaak Ibn Ahmed, who arrived in Somali land between the 11th and 15th century. He married an Abyssinian woman and had four children who created the Habr Toljaala, an important Somali confederacy. The sons of the Abyssinian woman who established their own clan were Mohammed Abokr (Ibran), Ibrahim (Sambur), Musa Abokr (Jaalo) and Ahmed (Toljaalo). Thus in the veins of one of the most important Somali tribe flows a drop of Abyssinian (Tigre/Amhara) blood.

Regardless of whether the Oromos and the Somalis had migrated to Somalia from Arabia, it has been established by scholars that both of them had found themselves together in Somalia one time or another be it as friends or foes until the Oromo were driven from there under the pressure of Islam at least by the 12th Century. Both the Oromo and Somali had to live together in Ethiopia as well. As a matter of fact, the Arsi and Borena Oromos intermixed with the influential Somali tribe, the Geraa or Garre. The Bah Girei, one of the two tribes of the most important family of Southern Somalia descends from an Oromo mother. The Oromo and Somali now live together mainly in the Ethiopian provinces of Harer, Bale and Arsi sharing the same religion, economy and culture, using the same tools, and wearing more or less the same dresses, ornaments and hair styles as those of their Afar and Saho relatives and neighbors.

The Oromo did not mix and live together only with the Somali and the Afar the past 500 years. They also mixed with and influenced the Amhara, the Sidama, the Bale, the Gafat, the Hadiya, the Gurage, the Damot and many other peoples. Their impact particularly upon the Amhara religion, language, culture, politics and history was immense. The Oromo outnumber every ethnic group. The Amhara are next to the Oromo in number. Nevertheless, almost every Amhara has some Oromo lineage way down her or his genealogy. In Gojam, a person without an Oromo lineage is considered to be not a “real” Gojame. This holds true even for the Gojame nobles. Dejazmach Tulu, the governor of Damot around 1700, who was married to Woizero Welete Selassie, one of the daughters of Atse Iyasu I, was an Oromo, Dejazmach weld Abib, who was appointed as the governor of Gojam in 1745 during the reign of Atse Eyasu II, was another Oromo. His son, Dejazmach Yosedek, married Princess Welete Israel, the daughter of Etege Mentewab and Grazmach Iyasu. She mothered Ras Hailu and Ras Goshu, the two prominent rulers of Gojam. The Oromo rulers of Gojam claimed Abyssinian royal blood lineage through her.

Negus Tekle Haimanot, the descendant of Ras Hailu and Princess Welete Israel, was conscious of his Oromo background. After he was crowned Negus in 1881 by Emperor Yohannes IV, he fought against Menelik for power and territory. Though he lost the Battle of Embabo to Menelik, he became Menelik’s friend the rest of his life, remembering Menelik’s mercy capon him as a prisoner of war. The Gondere civilization would have been different without Oromo participation. Ever since the days of Emperor Susenyos (1571-1632) who appointed them to key government positions, the Oromo have taken part in building Gonder as administrators, soldiers, and clergymen. Hence, their affiliation with and pride in the Gondere civilization.

Regarding religion, a significant number of the so-called Amhara Christians exercise the indigenous Oromo religion, including the Atete, Borenticha, Irecha and Awulia rituals. As far as language is concerned, Amharic is heavy-laden with Oromo vocabularies, proverbs, sayings and tales. The Amhara have adopted the Oromo way of life to a great extent in the spheres of warfare, horsemanship, agriculture, clothing, handicraft, hair dressing, social relationships including the method of child adoption called Gudifecha and Mogassa, to mention just a few. Besides mixing with the Amhara common folks, the Oromo intermarried with the Amhara nobles and ruled Ethiopia for centuries as dejazmaches, rases, princes, kings, emperors and empresses. As a matter of fact, Ethiopia has been enriched by the Oromo, who, pumping fresh blood into the veins of the Amhara and introducing a rich and diverse culture among the rest of the ancient peoples of Ethiopia, strengthened to an immeasurable extent the demographic, political, linguistic, social and cultural dynamics of Ethiopia.

Reciprocally, the Amhara have exposed the Oromo to their language, culture, and religion so that some of them were converted to Christianity speaking Ge’ez and Amharic and leading the life-style of the Amhara. The Oromo language has been enriched by Amharic words, proverbs, sayings and folk tales which cry for a deeper examination.

An obvious Amhara Christian influence on the Oromo is the celebration of Meskel (the holiday of the founding of the True Cross) and Timket (Epiphany). Meskel is celebrated not only by the Oromo and the Amhara alike, but by many other Ethiopians including the peoples of Sidama, Kefa, Mao and Janjero. Timket is observed by numerous Ethiopians, except Muslims, who appreciate and enjoy each other’s songs and dances. A number of sacred places, however, are frequented by both Christian and Muslim Oromo and Amharas as well as other Ethiopians. These sacred places include Mt. Zuqualla, the Church of St. Gabriel in Kulubi and the tomb of Sheik Hussein in Bale.

Surrounded by the Somali, the Oromo, the Saho and some Eritrean ethnic groups, the Afar have kept their Ethiopian identity for ages. Like their fellow Tigreans, Amharas and Somalis, some of them claim their ties with South Arabia. According to both the Adoimara (commoners) and the Asaimara (nobles) traditions, they (the commoners and nobles) descend from an intermarriage of the indigenous Afar people with Yemeni Arabs. At the same time, I.M. Lewis mentions in his book, People of The Horn of Africa, that the Asaimara also descend from immigrant Abyssinians (Tigre/Amhara) of the Ethiopian highlands.

Whereas northern Afar tribes were associated with Tigrai and Eritrea, the Anfari of Aussa dealt with Central Ethiopia. In an attempt to create a good relationship with the leaders of the Aussa, some of the Amhara emperors sought to get married with them. The common Amhara merchants were engaged in salt trade with the Afar for a long time. The Afar and the Somali have a number of things which they share in common. Their physical features are the same. Both are predominantly Muslim. Their economy depends on camels, sheep and goats. Many of them are nomads. They share the same territories. Their tools and weapons are the same. Their food, dresses and hair-styles are the same. Their application and techniques of circumcision is the same. Both the Afar and the Somali practice sorcery to combat illness and use amulets to keep away diseases and evil spirits.

In the same way as the Afar, the Sidama people have attested once again to the fact that they are Ethiopians by refusing to be tagged by their ethnic names in these sad days of ethnic madness. And the Sidama people have a very good reason for not denying their being Ethiopians.

Among the segments of the Sidama populace, let us, for instance, take the most important ones, such as the Kefa, the Kembata, the Janjero, the Welamo, and the Hadiya. All of these peoples have direct or indirect lineage with the two major Semitic groups of Ethiopians, namely, the Tigreans and the Amhara.

The last king of the Keffa, Tato, claimed descent from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. According to the tradition of the Kefa people, their ancestors came from Tigrai. Their original language was Tigrigna until they learned the Keffa language. The Kembata, too, believe that they have some Abyssinian blood and that their first king had been a member of the Solomonic Dynasty. The Welamo, as mentioned earlier, traced two of their three dynasties from Damot during the reign of Yekuno Amlak towards the second part of the 13 Century, and from Tigre during the time of Amde-Tsion in the 16th Century. Two of their first kings had Tigre and Amhara names: Girma and Mikael, as I indicated earlier. The Janjero ruling family, the Mwa, claimed that they were of Abyssinian origin and that they came from Northern Ethiopia. Since the beginning of the 14th century upto the rise of Ahmed Grang and the Oromo, the Hadiya were tributary to Abyssinia, which means that they were influenced by the Tigre/Amhara religion, culture and politics.

The peoples of Sidama, sharing the same religions, speaking the same Kushitic languages which have been enriched by each other’s vocabularies, and having existed under the same pre-industrial feudal order specializing in agricultural products unique to them such as Inset and coffee, and trading with each other for mutual benefits, have evolved into a homogeneous unit over a long period of time. At present, this background which they share in common has not only created in them a sense of unity and togetherness, but also a sharp awareness of Ethiopianism as a reaction to the current ethnic division which attempts to tear them asunder thus threatening the very existence of each one of them. That is why they have now allied themselves under the Southern Ethiopian Peoples Democratic Coalition which believes in Ethiopian unity based on equality.

Though each Ethiopian ethnic group exhibits its own unique features, which are a blessing in disguise because they contribute something to the formation of multi-ethnic Ethiopia, yet, the same ethnic, linguistic, cultural, religious, social, historical, political, economic and geographical backgrounds which the various peoples of Ethiopia share in common, create in them feelings of unity and make them appreciate the cultural products achieved by them individually and collectively. That is why the Gurage can appreciate and be proud of the Aksumite civilization. That is why the Oromo can consider the civilization of the Agew at Lalibela as their own. That is why the Welamo could relate themselves to the civilization at Gonder and elsewhere. And this is reciprocal.

As far as autonomy was concerned, the states at the periphery had their own kingdoms and sultanates. The center, for the most part, needed only recognition and tributes. As long as these two were fulfilled, the center was satisfied. Whenever the periphery refused to pay tributes, the center took measures. Though some ambitious individuals waged wars to seize power from the center, and even though the peoples of the periphery rebelled some times against “central” injustice, they did not deny the fact that they were Ethiopians. This assertion was proved in 1896 at the Battle of Adwa when imperialist Italy waged war against Ethiopia, during the scramble for Africa. Ethiopians from both the center and the periphery understood the implications of Italy’s aggression and fought bravely to defend their motherland.

Aksum, as aforementioned, was built by both Semitic and Hamitic Ethiopians. It is therefore the pride of all Ethiopians. To question what the Gurage have to do with Aksum is to deny their historical contributions and to attempt to deprive them of a pride they share with other Ethiopians. The rock-hewn churches of Lalibela were built predominantly by the Hamitic Agew as well as other Ethiopians including the Amhara and Tigre so that Christian Oromos and others would not go as far as Jerusalem for worship. For the Christian Oromo, Lalibela is their Jerusalem. For the non-Christian Kushitic or Hamitic Oromo, the churches of Lalibela are symbols of their pride, for they were envisaged and materialized by the Hamitic Emperor Lalibela. It is probably by realizing this among other reasons that the Hamitic Ahmed Grang who had destructed so many other churches previously, spared the churches of Lalibela from annihilation. Lalibela is the pride of all Ethiopians. To question whether the Oromo care for Lalibela is to suggest that the Oromo are foreigners.

The peoples of Ethiopia have been so much interwoven over the past 6000 years racially, ethnically, religiously, psychologically, linguistically, historically, culturally, socially, geographically and economically, that no force can tear them asunder easily. The peoples of Ethiopia, regardless of their ethnic background, are kinsmen. The common factors which they share together can bind them yet tightly.

While the Marxist stand on the question of nationalities (which is the driving force behind Ato Meles Zenawi’s ethnic program), looks impressive as a theory, it is too simplistic and too narrow to be applied on the Ethiopian reality. The relationships of Ethiopians to each other are too sophisticated to be categorized too narrowly. The unique peoples of Ethiopia will find a unique solution to ethnic conflicts or any other problems which they encounter while striving to strengthen their unity based on equality and while attempting to build their impoverished nation.

(Fikre Tolossa, Ph.D., is Assistant Dean of Faculty at Columbia Pacific university in San Rafael, CA and Associate Editor of Ethiopian Review.)

ALEMITU GEBREGIORGIS, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION &
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Nos. 92-70362, 92-70670 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
December 15, 1993, Argued, Submitted, Seattle, Washington
January 12, 1994, Filed

Subsequent History: Reported in Table Case Format at: 15 F.3d 1085.

Prior History:

Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. INS No. A28-533-700

Disposition:

AFFIRMED.

Judges:

Before: BROWNING, NORRIS, and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:

MEMORANDUM Alemitu Gebregiorgis appeals the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her asylum and withholding of deportation. She also appeals the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen the case. We affirm.

I

Alemitu Gebregiorgis is an Ethiopian citizen and Jehovah’s Witness. She lived in Ethiopia until 1987, working as a teacher and then for the Ministry of Education. From her retirement in 1986 until her departure from Ethiopia, Gebregiorgis received a government pension. Since 1972, Gebregiorgis has been a Jehovah’s Witness, a religion banned by the Ethiopian government until 1991, when the new government revoked the prohibition. The ban forced Gebregiorgis to practice her religion in secret, although she was open about her beliefs. Since Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in participating in political activities, Gebregiorgis avoided joining women’s political meetings and hid from government officials inquiring about her absence from these affairs. In response to Gebregiorgis’ refusal to participate in politics, the government threatened her with arrest and confiscated her ration card. In 1987, Gebregiorgis traveled to Italy, where she remained for fifteen months before leaving for the United States. Gebregiorgis entered the United States on July 13, 1988. At a February 9, 1990 hearing on her applications for asylum and withholding of deportation, the IJ held that Gebregiorgis had not established a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia. He noted that even though the government knew of her religious beliefs, it had continued her employment and had paid her pension. The IJ ordered Gebregiorgis deported. Gebregiorgis appealed the order to the BIA, which affirmed the deportation order on March 4, 1992. The BIA also took notice of the State Department’s 1991 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Ethiopia (“State Department Report”) for the facts that the Ethiopian government had fallen in 1991 and that the new government had lifted the ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses. Because of this change in government, the BIA decided that Gebregiorgis did not have a well-founded fear of religious persecution. Gebregiorgis then filed a motion to reopen on April 3, 1992, claiming that the February 1992 arrest of her half-brother in Ethiopia for political crimes he had allegedly committed while an official in the old regime endangered her. Gebregiorgis explained that it is common in Ethiopia to punish relatives of people charged with political crimes and claimed that she feared persecution because of her half-brother’s former political alliance and activities. Gebregiorgis also argued in the motion that the BIA improperly had taken notice of the change in the Ethiopian government. The BIA denied the motion because Gebregiorgis had failed to present a prima facie case for asylum. Gebregiorgis appeals the BIA’s dismissal of her appeal and denial of her motion to reopen.

II

Gebregiorgis argues that the BIA abused its discretion when it took notice of the State Department Report. The BIA has the discretion to take administrative notice of facts not in evidence. Castillo-Villagra v. INS, 972 F.2d 1017, 1028 (9th Cir. 1992). However, depending on the type of fact it notices, it may have to warn the petitioner of its intention to take notice or to allow for rebuttal evidence. Id. If the BIA should have warned the petitioner or allowed rebuttal, the denial of the petitioner’s opportunity to be heard on the issue is a due process violation. Id. at 1029. In Castillo-Villagra, we explained that to determine whether the BIA abused its discretion in taking administrative notice, a court may consider “whether the facts at issue are: (1) narrow and specific or broad and general; (2) central or peripheral; (3) readily accepted or controversial; (4) purely factual or mixed with judgment, policy or political preference; (5) readily provable or provable only with difficulty or not at all; or, (6) facts about the parties or facts . . . unrelated to them.” 972 F.2d at 1028 n.5. In Castillo-Villagra, the BIA had taken notice of the change of government in Nicaragua and had decided that this fact eliminated any basis for the petitioners’ fear of persecution by the ousted Sandinistas. The reviewing court rejected this conclusion and held that although it was not debatable that the Sandinistas no longer controlled the government, it was possible that they retained enough power to persecute the petitioners. Id. at 1027. Therefore, the court concluded that the BIA erred in not providing the petitioners with an opportunity to rebut the noticed facts. Id. at 1029. Here, the BIA took notice of the State Department Report to establish that the new Ethiopian government had lifted its predecessor’s ban on the Jehovah’s Witnesses and that the religion’s adherents had held a public Bible study meeting. The BIA concluded from these facts that the petitioner did not have a well-founded fear of religious persecution. It did not inform Gebregiorgis that it was going to take notice of the report, nor did it allow her to present evidence showing that the changing political conditions in Ethiopia did not undermine the basis for her fear of religious persecution. Applying the Castillo-Villagra factors, the fact that the new Ethiopian government had lifted a ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses is specific, factual, and easy to prove. But the BIA’s inference that this new policy removes any basis for the petitioner’s fear of persecution is much more controversial, difficult to prove, and judgmental. As in Castillo-Villagra, the BIA used the noticed fact to reach a debatable and sweeping conclusion. Given a rebuttal opportunity, Gebregiorgis might have been able to produce evidence of continued persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses despite the government’s ostensible policy of religious freedom. Because the new government’s intentions and the real extent of religious freedom in Ethiopia are not easily determined facts, the BIA should have allowed Gebregiorgis to attempt to rebut the State Department Report. The INS argues that even if the BIA abused its discretion by taking notice, the court should not reverse because the BIA did not base its decision solely on the noticed fact. Rather, the INS contends, the BIA based its dismissal on Gebregiorgis’ failure to show a well-founded fear of persecution, making this case distinguishable from Castillo-Villagra where the noticed fact was the sole ground for the BIA’s decision. 972 F.2d at 1031. The INS’s position is problematic because the BIA’s order dismissing the appeal did not specifically state that Gebregiorgis’ failure to show a well-founded fear was an independent ground for its decision. In Sarria-Sibaja v. INS, 990 F.2d 442 (9th Cir. 1993), the BIA had taken notice of a change of government in Nicaragua without giving the petitioner warning and an opportunity to rebut the noticed fact. Id. at 444. The INS argued that since the BIA also had discussed specific reasons for dismissing the appeal, the BIA decision was not grounded solely on the improper administrative notice. This court rejected this reasoning and reversed, holding that since “the BIA did not explicitly state that the specifically enumerated reasons were an independent basis for its dismissal of [the] appeal,” it could not find that the specific reasons cited by the BIA are an independent basis for its decision.” Id. (emphasis added). Notably, the Sarria-Sibaja court distinguished its case from Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117 (9th Cir. 1991), where this circuit upheld the BIA’s dismissal of the appeal in spite of allegedly improper administrative notice. In Castillo, unlike in Sarria-Sibaja, the BIA explicitly had stated in its dismissal order that it had based its decision on “two distinct grounds, each of which is an independent basis for denial.” 951 F.2d at 1120 (quoting BIA order). Here, the BIA’s initial order did not satisfy the explicit statement rule established in Sarria-Sibaja. After examining and rejecting Gebregiorgis’ evidence, the BIA stated, “In addition, we take administrative notice of changed political conditions in Ethiopia since the respondent’s hearing.”[1] This language does not denote an independent ground for the BIA’s decision. Sarria-Sibaja, 990 F.2d at 444. Although we might be able to infer from the BIA’s opinion that its dismissal was based independently on Gebregiorgis’ failure to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, Sarria-Sibaja requires a specific statement. Subsequently, however, the BIA did make a sufficiently specific statement. In its later order denying Gebregiorgis’ motion to reopen, the BIA stated that “we did not rely on the change in government as the sole basis for our finding that the respondent had not established a well-founded fear of persecution by the Government of Ethiopia. This was an alternative basis after we had already discussed the facts . . . .” This comment satisfies Sarria-Sibaja’s specificity requirement because it explicitly states that the BIA had considered and had rejected the merits of Gebregiorgis’ case independently from the change in government. Therefore, the BIA’s failure to allow Gebregiorgis to present rebuttal evidence did not affect its decision that she had failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution.

III

Gebregiorgis claims that the BIA abused its discretion in concluding that she did not have a well-founded fear of religious persecution. To qualify for asylum, a petitioner must have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 427, 94 L. Ed. 2d 434, 107 S. Ct. 1207 (1987). The petitioner must make a “showing, by credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record, of facts that would support a reasonable fear that the petitioner faces persecution.” Rodriguez-Rivera v. INS, 848 F.2d 998, 1002 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Diaz-Escobar v. INS, 782 F.2d 1488, 1492 (9th Cir. 1985)) (emphasis in original). To establish her fear of persecution if returned to Ethiopia, Gebregiorgis submitted declarations and human rights reports of the Ethiopian government’s persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses. She also testified that she had been threatened with arrest for refusing to participate in political activities for religious reasons, had to practice her faith in secret, had to hide from government officials who wanted to make her participate in political activities, and had been told that she would be denied a funeral because of her religion. The BIA, however, noted that Gebregiorgis had retained her government job and had retired on a government pension, even though she was open about her religious beliefs. Because this evidence discredits Gebregiorgis’ testimony, she failed to meet her burden of presenting such evidence that a reasonable fact finder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815 (1992). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing her appeal. Gebregiorgis also appeals the denial of her application for withholding of deportation. To be entitled to withholding of deportation, she must show a clear probability that she would be persecuted if she returned to Ethiopia. Acewicz, 984 F.2d at 1062. Because she has failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, her evidence “does not meet the higher standard of a clear probability of persecution.” Id.

IV

Gebregiorgis further argues that the BIA erred in denying her motion to reconsider her application for asylum and withholding of deportation because new facts concerning her half-brother’s participation in the overthrown regime support her fear of persecution. The BIA may deny a motion to reopen because, among other reasons, “the movant has not established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought.” INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S. Ct. 904, 99 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1988). In deciding whether the motion, accompanying affidavits, and other evidentiary material establish a prima facie case, “the BIA must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the alien unless the evidence presented is ‘inherently unbelievable.'” Hernandez-Ortiz v. INS, 777 F.2d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 1985). Although the BIA must accept the truth of the facts asserted to support a motion to reopen, the evidence must consist of specific facts, not conclusory statements. Agustin v. INS, 700 F.2d 564, 565 (9th Cir. 1983). In this case, Gebregiorgis has not provided specific facts to support her claim that her half-brother’s alliance with the former Ethiopian government places her in danger of persecution if she returns to Ethiopia. The affidavits supporting her motion state simply that it is common for family members of political prisoners to be persecuted; they do not provide specific examples of this occurrence. In Shoaee v. INS, 704 F.2d 1079 (9th Cir. 1983), the court held that a petitioner had not presented a prima facie case on a motion to reopen when he had claimed that his family was closely connected with the deposed Shah of Iran, because his fears were “‘mainly related to actions taken against his father,’ not to persecution directed at [the petitioner] himself.” Id. at 1084 (quoting the BIA opinion). Similarly, Gebregiorgis’ claims are related to the potential persecution that her half-brother faces, not to an established threat to her own safety. She, in fact, acknowledges that she had no contact with her half-brother while he was part of the former regime, nor did she participate in that government’s politics. Since Gebregiorgis has failed to advance specific facts supporting a prima facie case of a well-founded fear of persecution, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reopen.

V

We affirm the BIA’s dismissal of Gebregiorgis’ appeal and its denial of her motion to reopen. AFFIRMED.

This statement distinguishes the instant case from Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 1993), in which the court denied a petition for review because the petitioners had had the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the administrative notice of a change of government. Here, since the BIA took notice after Gebregiorgis’ hearing, she did not have the opportunity afforded the petitioners in Acewicz.

By Fikre Tolossa
Ethiopian Review, August 1993

In my article about the soccer event in North America (ER, June 1993) I predicted that the Walia Club of San Francisco will be this year’s champion. And indeed, that prediction has been fulfilled–the Walia Club is now the champion.

The long-awaited and much talked about soccer tournament is over at last; but it didn’t pass by without leaving its mark on thousands of Ethiopians who participated in this remarkable event from June 28 through July 4, 1993 in the Bay Area of San Francisco. The occasion brought together people and friends who never met each other for two decades or more. It enriched some business people and musicians, and impoverished others. It delighted the winners and saddened the losers.

Perhaps because of the inflation, people spent their money very cautiously. The Ethiopian singers were expensive to hire and hard to deal with. Some of them broke agreements made to one sponsor and made a deal with another for a better pay. One example of this is the case of Tamrat Abebe. According to his sponsor, Tamrat Abebe broke his contract before it expired. He was supposed to perform on Sunday, July 4, at 9:00 PM. As the audience was waiting for him eagerly, he showed up at 11:00 PM and left right away under the pretext to drive around for a minute. He then was seen performing in a restaurant while his sponsor and the audience were waiting for his return nervously.

The sponsor had to find another singer, Elias Tebabal and Yohannes Berhanu, who, out of sympathy for the sponsor, sang for free. She is now filing a law suit against Tamrat Abebe.

There were so many music shows in every corner of the Bay Area performing simultaneously that people were confused in deciding where to go. I was saddened when I realized that Ethiopians in North America were attracted more to concerts and drinks than to cultural activities such as theater and poetry performance.

It seemed that neither the singers nor the sponsors were mindful of the financial problem of their community. When few people showed up for the shows, the sponsors had no choice but to lower their original price by half. Few profited anything even among those who sold food. Those who sold cassettes and T-shirts, I think, did well, even though the price of some of the T-shirts was incredibly high. One smart fellow probably have made a fortune selling T-shirts bearing the names of the different Ethiopian high schools, which invoke nostalgia for many.

Ethiopians spent over three million dollars in just one week, demonstrating their great economic potential. In the main, it was the American community of the Bay Area and the various American airlines which benefited much from the whole episode.

Nonetheless, the Ethiopian Sports and Cultural Federation in North America was not a loser. It is estimated that it has grossed at least $150,000 from the soccer entrance fee and from the concert given freely to it by Aster Aweke and a group of other musicians. The Federation disputes this figure and wants the large expense to organize the tournament to be taken into consideration. It also promises to make the financial statement public shortly.

The Federation has won the admiration of some people for its ability to organize the tournament effectively on a national scale; and above all, for being instrumental in brining thousands of Ethiopians together. On the other hand, it has outraged many individuals by the way it had conducted its business. I will summarize below the complaints I gathered from different individuals and the Federations response.

Ato Sileshi Mengiste, President of the host of this year’s game, the Walia Club, says that his team worked extremely hard for months in order to make the tournament successful. It reserved the stadium, hotels and concert halls. It welcomed the players with wreathes of flowers unlike previous years. It provided medical aid among other things. In spite of this, the Federation did not acknowledge Walia’s efforts. Ato Sileshi complains that, “members of the Federation, the big guys, just walked in, shortly before the soccer game started, to a house built by the sweat of our brows, had fun in it, gave presents to each other, made their money and left without even saying thank you.”

The Federation’s Auditor, Dr. W.M. Akalou, argues differently: “It is important to state that Walia Club or its representative is a member of the Board of Directors of the Federation and as such it has more power than the Executive Committee.

The Executive Committee, which carries out the decision of the Board, works at the pleasure of the Board. The President of the Walia Club not only is aware of this fact, but that he was an active participant during the deliberation of the Board on all the procedural issues he raised. Undeniably, he has worked very hard during this tournament. So have all of us. Most of us were at the stadium for all the 7 days and worked on the field for over ten hours everyday. No one was paid for this service.”

Elizabeth Gebeyehu, who organized a beauty contest, was another disappointed person. Her beauty contest was supported by the Walia Club. She paid for the use of the hall reserved by Walia with the understanding that the Federation will advertise her program at the Hilton and at the stadium. Ato Sileshi says that he presented her program to the Federation, and the Federation approved it on May 24. But to his surprise, the Federation changed its mind, and on May 28, stated that it had never approved it, even though the minute of the meeting testified the previous conversation. Elizabeth complains that Ato Birhanu Wolde-Mariam, the President of the Federation, refused to even let her place her fliers on the information desk and to announce her show at the stadium. She claims to have lost several thousand dollars as a result.

The Federation responds that while the it is “sympathetic to her dilemma, her function was unilaterally scheduled by the Walia Club contrary to established procedures. If the Federation had promoted her function as scheduled, it would have violated a contractual agreement with a group that was scheduled to appear the same night. Several of the complaints in this connection are from individuals who missed the deadline or came at the eleventh hour and insisted that they be included anyway.”

Aregahegn Werash, a singer, was also denied access to the information desk. I heard him say bitterly, “This is like piercing my throat with a knife!” There were a dozen other people whose information was suppressed by the Federation. What is more, the Federation went out of its way to pick up fliers from parked cars and throw them away. On the other hand, the Federation was advertising Aster Aweke’s show extensively.

On top of all of this, the federation delayed its decision on who would use the concert halls reserved by Walia in the Bay Area. Hence, people were unable to do the necessary preparations for the shows such as early promotions. Vendors complained about the price of boothes. For instance, each vendor selling T-shirts had to pay $300 for the booth and license.

Those who sold food claim to have paid over $884. They say that it was difficult for them to make a profit. Some did profit nothing at all. According to the Federation, the rate of contribution, which has not changed for the last three years, is $250 for dry goods, $300 for snacks and $450 for cooked food.” These figures do not include the license fees.

The vendors were forbidden to sell drinks. The Walia team was in charge of all the revenues generated from refreshment sales. Consequently, it had to interfere with vendors who tried to sell drinks. This put the Walia at odds with vendors. A vendor, Ato Asmamaw, was stopped from selling mineral water even though he had the permit to do so in the beginning. Woizero Zaffua brought some soda to her booth for her thirsty children. Somebody from the Walia confiscated the drinks inspite of her plea to leave them for her children.

Dinbernesh Woube brewed Tella and Tedje and brought them on a trailer all the way from Seattle, Washington. She charges that instead of supporting her, the Federation forbade her from selling outside the stadium, inspite of the fact that the Federation was not offering these drinks for sale. The Federation argues that it “does not permit, endorse or promote the use or sale of alcoholic drinks on the premises on which the tournament is held.”

A group of young men was endeavoring to recruit customers for MCI by offering a free phone call to Ethiopia from the stadium. The Federation refused to announce this information to the public. Had the Federation cooperated with these young men, they would have made some money, and people would have spoken with their relatives in Ethiopia for free.

The Federation has also been criticized for being partial to a team it favors when it comes to selecting the site of the tournament. The Ethio-Atlanta Sports Club is the recent accuser of the Federation for being partial. According to Ato La’eke Malede, the Secretary of the Ethio-Atlanta Sports Club, his team should have been the host of the 1994 tournament in Atlanta. La’eke said, “Dr. Akalou came to Atlanta on June 10, 1993 to assess whether we would fulfill the criteria of the federation in order to host the 1994 tournament. We showed him everything the Federation required including the site of a five star hotel with a large lobby, the stadium and Ethiopian restaurants which were all within three miles radius from each other, as well as the concert halls, the ballrooms costing $2000 which we managed to get for free, unlike other host team of previous years including the Walia of San Francisco. In addition, we assured him of the cooperation of the Mayor’s office to make the event significant and to declare the football week as an Ethiopian week in Atlanta. We also revealed to him CNN’s willingness to broadcast the news of the soccer event to the world and to Ethiopia. Dr. Akalou was impressed. He went from Atlanta to Maryland to see if they were as well qualified as we were to host the tournament. He then told me that our hotels and stadium were far better than those of Maryland, but that Maryland had more Ethiopian restaurants than Atlanta. I explained to Dr. Akalou that Maryland itself had no restaurants of its own unless we took into account the ones available in Washington D.C. Atlanta’s ratio of restaurants, however, was in proportion to its population. Most important of all, we know that Maryland hasn’t yet found a stadium. In spite of the fact that we are in a better position than Maryland to host the 1994 tournament, and though the 24 board members of the Federation should have voted over this matter in accordance with the bylaws of the Federation, the Executive Committee violated the bylaws and decided that Maryland host the 1994 soccer tournament. The Federation should reconsider its decision and the 24 Board Members should vote to determine the real host of the 1994 tournament.”

Dr. Akalou responds that, “The five star hotel touted by La’eke charges almost $70 per day with $12 per day parking, a much hefty rate than the Federation has established as an absolute minimum. It must be remembered that the majority of our players are students with limited means.” Regarding the decision process in selecting the tournament site, Dr. Akalou says that, “it was the Board’s decision to delegate this responsibility to the Executive Committee. Nevertheless, Atlanta has the right to appeal the decision to the Board of which it is a voting member.”

Ato Belete Shiferaw, a businessman from Seattle, Washington, is another individual who is complaining against the Federation. Ato Belete was the President of the Seattle Dashen Sports Club which hosted the 1991 tournament. He says that in his capacity as the President of Dashen he bore on his shoulders all the financial responsibilities involving the rent of the stadium, tents and other costs with the understanding that he would be reimbursed by the Federation after the game was over. He claims that the Federation left him in debts and destroyed his credit. He complains: “The members of the Federation disappeared from Seattle with all the funds we generated, thus leaving our team without funds, and me with a debt of $13,000. The Federation was supposed to allocate 40% of the revenue to the host team. It kept all of it for itself illegally. Nobody knows the exact figure of the revenue from Seattle. The Federation ran away with it before our CPA was able to balance it. They had also sold the wrong tickets at the entrance claiming that the original tickets were lost. This they did, in order to evade investigation.” There was the same accusation this year that wrong tickets were sold at the stadium.

According to the Federation, Ato Belete Shiferaw left for Ethiopia when the new government took power abandoning his responsibility. The story is much complicated to explain in a few lines. The Federation accuses Ato Belete as “a man who has caused much anguish and loss to both the Federation and the Seattle Soccer Club.”

Regarding the sale of wrong tickets, the Federation answers that they ran out of tickets on Sunday and they had to use Saturday’s tickets. In spite of its shortcomings, the Federation should be praised and given credit for its achievements, and not be condemned totally. If the Federation is to last longer, it has to improve a number of things. First and foremost it should focus its attention on serving the community instead of channeling its energy on a total fund raising campaign. It should give autonomy to the host teams to decide on petty matters such as renting concert halls and boothes. In other words, it shouldn’t interfere with recreation and the rental of recreational and commercial facilities. It should limit the term of its officers to only two years in order to avert favoritism and corruption. It should make public its financial statement supervised by a Certified Public Accountant shortly after the end of every soccer tournament. It should provide evidence of its non-profit status. It should indeed finance as it claims to do the expenses of the teams when they travel to participate in the annual tournament. It should promote and encourage cultural undertakings such as the performing arts during the soccer week, instead of supporting and promoting only music and dance. It should not favor one group over another when it comes to advertising. It may ask for a reasonable fee for doing an advertising service, but should discriminate nobody as long as the advertisement is not harmful to the community. It should diversify the soccer event by including other sports such as volleyball, tennis and swimming, even as it introduced track and field this year.

If the Federation is willing to implement the suggestions mentioned above, I think the event will be an ideal phenomenon for Ethiopians in North America for years to come.
_________________________
Fikre Tolossa, Ph.D., is Assistant Dean of Faculty at Columbia Pacific University in San Rafael, CA and Associate Editor of ER.

By Fikre Tolossa
Ethiopian Review, June 1993

It has now become a tradition for the Ethiopian Community in North America to hold an annual soccer tournaments in different cities in the United States and Canada. For some, this event is purely sport. For others, it is an opportunity for business transaction. For the great majority, it is an opportunity to meet old friends, get together and have fun.

What makes this year’s event outstanding is the fact that the Federation is celebrating the 10th Anniversary of its inception, and this takes place in one of the most beautiful areas of the U.S.A. — the Bay Area, which includes Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco. The actual site of the stadium is in Newark, about 30 minutes drive from Oakland and not far away from the Airport Hilton where most of the players will stay. On top of this, the host of this year’s event, Walia, the San Francisco Bay Area team, has special programs hitherto unheard of in such football events in the Ethiopian Community of North America.

According to Ato Dagnachew Bezabeh, the Public Relations Officer of the Ethiopian Football Federation in North America (EFFNA), some of the programs which the Walia team planned for the first time include children’s short distance race, 800 meters run for women and 400 to 1500 meters for men. In addition, there will be health care including free medical checkups, fully equipped ambulance with physicians on site, as well as child care service for children aged three to twelve. The child care service will relieve parents to help them move freely by keeping the children busy with games and tours to the zoo.

Ato Seleshi Mengiste, President of the Executive Committee of the Walia Club which is organizing all these programs, told me that members of the Committee have put in a great deal of efforts in order to coordinate the various new programs planned for this year. According to Ato Seleshi, his Committee has obtained the approval of EFFNA and kept regular contacts with the EFFNA Executive Committee often holding meetings through teleconference with the members who reside in two countries and five states.

Ato Hassen Beshir, the Public Relations Officer of the Walia team, said that he and his colleagues would not have succeeded in their effort to organize the event without the assistance and cooperation of Ethiopians, American businesses and professional associations in the Bay Area.

There will be a host of musicians from Ethiopia, the U.S.A. and Canada. A theater group which consists of Teferi Alemu and Kurabachew Deneke from Yehager Feker Theater, Djemanesh Solomon from The City Hall Theater and Mulualem Tadesse from the National Theater will stage a comedy show entitled “Yechagula Shirshir,” adopted by Teferi Alemu. My latest three-act play, Sergegna Teff, which reflects the socio-political upheaval in Ethiopia for the past two years and which suggests that the peoples of Ethiopia are one and the same, will be performed by talented Ethiopian actors probably at the Parkway Theater in Oakland. In addition, I will recite my poems and tales about life, love, friendship, time and patroitism, which I have recited in the past 23 years in Ethiopia, Russia, and Europe and the U.S. The legendary masinko player, Derbabaw Abunu, will accompany me with his masinko and a repertoire of witty lyrics. The distinguished Ethiopian painter, Wosene Kosrof, will exhibit some of his works at the Oakland Hilton and at the internationally famous Bomani Art Gallery of San Francisco. There will be a “Miss Ethiopia Beauty Contest” for the first time. A large number of ex-members of the American Peace Corps Volunteers will also participate in the event as the soccer week coincides with their conference

According to Dagnachew this year’s guests of honor will be Kebede Metaferia, a former Ethiopian soccer star and Derartu Tulu, a gold medalist at the 1992 Olympics. Kebede Metaferia and Derartu Tulu will give trophies and medals to the winning teams and individuals. The two star athletes will be welcomed at the Oakland Airport by local American women organizations and the Executive Committee of EFFNA. The San Francisco Walia Club will receive each of the participant teams from the various states at the airport with wreaths. The Club has already reserved the Oakland Hilton and the Convention Center to accommodate some of the participants of this event. However, because of the great number of music promoters and sponsors, the organizers of the event are faced with shortage of recreation halls. The booths for vendors at the stadium have already been allocated, and the waiting list is too long. Up to 20,000 people are expected to attend this year’s event.

This annual event which begins on Monday, June 28 and ends on July 4, 1993 has the potential to generate funds for various causes such as helping the dismissed Addis Abeba University faculty and orphans in Ethiopia.

The first Ethiopian soccer tournament in North America was held in Houston, Texas, in the Summer of 1983. In its 10-year existence, even though the Federation’s activities have been increasing from year to year, it has been criticized for favoritism, mismanagement and financial scandal by some. Critics of the Federation charge that a team loyal to it or the one that it favors can maneuver easily to host the event. They also charge the Federation of misusing funds, not providing receipt of claimed expenses, not filling the Internal Revenue Service forms as a non-profit entity, not having a certified public accountant to audit the funds, and not limiting the terms of its officers

I mentioned some of these allegations to Ato Birhanu Woldemariam, one of the founders of the Federation and its current President. Ato Berhanu said that, “The allegation that we favor one team over another is unfounded. We are fair to every team. We abide by the rules and regulations of the Federation of International Football Association (FIFA), even though we have our own bylaws.” According to Ato Berhanu, the Federation has 24 board of directors representing all the 24 teams. The board of directors select 7 members of the executive committee. The board of directors and the executive committee have set rules and criteria by which a team will be qualified to host the tournament.