Bid for asylum moves forward

Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2004 | 10:57 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A Las Vegas man who fled with his family from Iran for fear he would be jailed or executed for his opposition to the government won a federal court decision today in his bid for asylum.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today the federal Board of Immigrations Appeals was wrong in refusing to grant asylum to Alireza Rabie Jahed, his wife and two children.

Reza Athari, the Las Vegas attorney for Jahed, said his client was "very happy." He said the case will return to the immigration board and it is "probably a sure thing" that the family will be allowed to remain in the United States.

Athari said that Iran remains on the list as one of three nations designated as "an axis of evil" and conditions have not changed. And he added this 2-1 decision by the appeals court is a "landmark" in immigration law.

Jahed belonged to the Mujahedeen from 1981 to 1985, a group of "holy warriors" that had been banned by the government. It sought to remove the government and end the torture, execution and human rights abuses.

In October 1990, a member of the Revolutionary Guard of the government recognized Jahed as belonging to the Mujahedeem and threatened to expose him to the government if he did not pay him money. Jahed told immigration officials he didn't have the money and he feared that he would be tortured, thrown in prison or executed so he decided to flee the country.

Jahed said he still fears the consequences if he is forced to return to Iran.

The appeals court, in a decision written by Judge Stephen S. Trott, said Jahed presented "uncontroverted evidence" that he was the target of the bribe attempt because of "his active political opposition to a nasty regime."

"The extortionist did not threaten personally to inflict bodily harm on Jahed, he threatened instead to unleash the fury of an uncivilized government against him if he did not succumb," wrote Trott.

Judge Alex Kozinski issued a strong dissent, saying the appeals court is failing to follow the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court in these cases.

"Maybe there's something in the water out here, but our court seems bent on denying the BIA (board of immigration appeals) the deference a reviewing court owes an administrative agency." He said the majority prefers to "tinker" with the job of immigration officials rather than doing their own duty.

He said the immigration judge and the appeals board recommended against asylum and that ruling was the right one. The immigration judge and the appeals board found that Jahed had been the victim of an attempted extortion, not political persecution.

The immigration judge and appeals board determined the solider was not acting in a government capacity but for his own greed. They also said that Jahed's extended family who remained in Iran have never been threatened.

But the majority decision said the judge and the appeal board "failed to recognize that the soldier who committed extortion was part of the totalitarian government to which Jahed had been opposed when he was active in the Mujahedeen."