Baghdasaryan v. Holder (9th Cir. 2010)

The respondent in this case, Baghdasaryan, was a citizen of Armenia.  He filed for asylum in the United States because of persecution he suffered on account of his political opinion.  In sustaining his case, the 9th Circuit found that opposition to government corruption is a type of political opinion which may form a basis for a grant of asylum.

In his native country, Baghdasaryan operated a small business which sold and distributed audio tapes.  He began to rent retail space from a person who was a general in the Armenian military, as well as a powerful political figure in Baghdasaryan’s town.  The retail space was part of a marketplace comprised of many other small merchants who sold various items.  Baghdasaryan paid his monthly rent, obtained the necessary permits to operate his business, and remitted all the taxes on his sales.

Soon afterwards, the general’s nephew and several other men came to Baghdasaryan’s store and demanded on behalf of the general an extra $100 in addition to rent.  Baghdasaryan refused their demand.  Instead, he filed a complaint against the general with a local judge.  The general’s nephew visited Baghdasaryan and made a second demand for the rent surcharge.  Baghdasaryan refused to comply and followed up with his judicial complaint.  Shortly thereafter, the tax authorities arrested Baghdasaryan and fined him $100 for working without a certain license.  No other merchant was required to have such license.  He was only permitted to continue with his business if he paid the monthly tax surcharge.  He also received the license only after having paid the tax official a $500 bribe.

After this experience, Baghdasaryan began to organize the other merchants in the marketplace to fight against the general’s systematic shakedown of them and his corruption.  With about a hundred other merchants, he organized a rally to publicize and protest the bribes which the general demanded.  Several days later, several government investigators raided his business under the pretext of searching for contraband materials.  They did not find anything illegal.  At the same time, Baghdasaryan began to receive anonymous phone calls which threatened him with dire consequences if he did not stop his activities against the general.  The general even confronted Baghdasaryan directly and demanded that he cease his political organizing.  He warned that Baghdasaryan would face further problems if he didn’t.  Baghdasaryan became fearful at this point and agreed to the general’s demand.  He began to pay the monthly $100 bribe.

Several years later, after having sent his wife and children to safety out of the country, Baghdasaryan reinitiated his organizing activities.  He scheduled a rally, but before it could take place, security personal arrested him at his own home in the early morning hours.  Although they had no warrant, the security personal took him into detention and held him there for twenty days.  He was not charged with a crime.  Instead, he was ordered to “behave normally” and stop “raising his head” against the general.  During his period of detention, the guards beat him regularly.  The beatings only stopped after Baghdasaryan agreed to stop exposing the corruption of the general.

The above facts formed the basis for Baghdasaryan’s asylum application.  The immigration judge who first heard his case found against him because the judge believed Baghdasaryan only suffered personal retribution, not persecution.  So did the BIA, to whom he appealed.  Baghdasaryan found a receptive audience at the 9th Circuit, however, who found in his favor.  The court ruled that Baghdasaryan’s opposition to government corruption was an expression of his political opinion, and therefore, was protected under the asylum laws.

Baghdasaryan was opposed to, and publicly criticized the general’s extortion efforts.  Baghdasaryan organized and rallied the other merchants to resist the general’s corruption.  In response to his efforts, the general, through the use of government forces and assets, sought to silence and intimidate Baghdasaryan.  The general’s actions fit the classic definition of a state actor persecuting a private citizen on account of his political opinion.  He used the powers of the state, such as the security forces and the tax authorities, against Baghdasaryan.  For this reason, Baghdasaryan qualified to political asylum.