All of Hechanova's political activities were in opposition to the Marcos regime. During the early 1980s, Hechanova suffered political persecution due to her political activities against Marcos, including being arrested three times, being detained twice for a day and a half, being followed by suspected Marcos bodyguards, and having her house stoned. When Hechanova lived in the Philippines, she was an active opponent of the regime of Ferdinand Marcos. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Hechanova has no reasonable, well-founded fear of persecution. We review a denial of asylum for abuse of discretion. The alien bears the burden of presenting evidence to demonstrate a well-founded, reasonable fear of persecution. We will uphold the BIA's determination unless a reasonable factfinder would be compelled by the evidence to reach contrary conclusions. We review the BIA's determination concerning persecution for substantial evidence. The IJ ruled against Hechanova on both grounds, and the BIA affirmed. §§ 1158(a), on the grounds that she had a well-founded fear of persecution and had suffered past persecution such that it would be inhumane to deport her. Hechanova sought asylum as a 'refugee' under 8 U.S.C. We have jurisdiction under section 106(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. Hechanova petitions for review of the BIA's decision.

In October 1994, the BIA dismissed Hechanova's appeal and denied her motion to remand. While her appeal was pending, Hechanova moved to remand her case to the IJ for an evidentiary hearing based on the circumstances of her presence in the United States during the five-year delay. She was ordered deported by an Immigration Judge (IJ) in March 1986, but due to a procedural error by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not receive Hechanova's properly filed appeal until March, 1991. Carmela Hechanova entered the United States lawfully as a nonimmigrant visitor in November, 1984, but overstayed her visa.

Opinion:MEMORANDUM * * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Judges:Before: THOMPSON, KLEINFELD and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Stewart Deutsch, Esq., OIL, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Civil Division, Washington, DC. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, San Francisco, CA. For IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent: Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA. Counsel:For CARMELA HECHANOVA, Petitioner: Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., San Francisco, CA. Prior History:Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Subsequent History: Reported in Table Case Format at: 81 F.3d 168. March 12, 1996, ** Submitted, San Francisco, California ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable forĭecision without oral argument. 94-70804 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.ĬARMELA HECHANOVA, Petitioner, v. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument 34-4, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 21 March 1996, available at: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Fed. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitĬarmela Hechanova v.

Alien march 1986