The U.S. Asylum System

Prior to 1980, the Attorney General had authority to authorize the withholding of deportation for an alien who feared physical persecution in the home country, and there was little right to appeal adverse decision in court. The legal concept of asylum was based on a 1951 U.N. Convention, which led the U.S. to amend its immigration laws to protect refugees. Starting in 1965, the U.S. recognized refugees only from communist countries or countries “in the general area of the Middle East,” and these claims were the subject of strict numerical limitations. The 1980 Refugee Act adopted the definition of refugees from a 1967 U.N. Protocol, removed the ideological considerations and numerical limitations, and provided appeal of adverse decision to the U.S. Courts of Appeal. As a result, asylum was no longer an ad hoc immigration procedure subject to the whims of policy, and Executive Branch asylum discretion was overseen by the judiciary.

Under current U.S. immigration law, asylum claims are first considered by an immigration judge. If the claim is rejected the alien ordered deported, the alien may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). If the BIA denies the claim, the alien may appeal directly to the federal circuit courts of appeal. It has been this way since 1980.

How did these changes in immigration law impact the cases that we heard by the U.S. courts? The following graph shows the number of asylum decisions issued by the U.S. Courts of Appeal between 1969 and 1980, when the Refugee Act was enacted. (These figures were obtained through a computer search I did of all federal opinions containing the keyword “asylum” within two words of “refugee”).

This next graph shows the number of asylum opinions issued between 1981 and 2000:

The second of these graphs undoubtedly shows the impact of the Refugee Act – asylum claimants began to seek review of the BIA’s denial before the U.S. appellate courts. This does not mean that the number of asylum claims necessarily increased. Rather, it reflects that the circuit courts heard the claims, because the law provided for judicial review that did not exist before 1980. The growth of opinions issued in the late-1990s probably reflected additional resources that were given to the asylum process to address the backlog of cases.

This third graphs shows something that is no so easily explainable – the stunning growth of asylum court rulings in the first six years of the 20th Century.

It is important to note how large of a jump there was between 2000 (71 judicial opinions) and 2001 (218), and the continuing exponential growth thereafter. To put this in perspective, the sum of the number of asylum decisions issued in 2005 (1965 opinions) and 2006 (2701) exceed the total number of asylum cases for all prior years in history combined. The following graph illustrates this. It depicts of the number of asylum decisions issued by the U.S. Courts of Appeal between 1969 and 2006, drawn to scale:

Clearly, something is going on here. Asylum has become a growth industry, mainly since 2000.

Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists

I counted a total of 160 opinions involving asylum claims by foreign Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, dating back to the first two in 1990. From that year to the present (September 2009), the following chart depicts the growth in these cases, by year, and how they follow the increased trend in asylum cases generally:

Amazingly, the Christian Scientists quickly dropped out of the deeper analysis, since there was only one case involving an asylum claimant from that faith, with the court affirming the BIA’s denial.[1] This left 159 asylum cases involving Mormons (26 opinions),[2] Seventh-Day Adventists (34 opinions),[3] and Jehovah’s Witnesses (98 opinions).[4]

Overall, across these three religions, the success rate for asylum claims reaching the U.S. Courts of Appeal is 21 percent (33 wins out of 160 cases). Mormon claimants won five (5) times, for a success rate of 19 percent.[5] For Adventists, the success rate was eight (8) percent (three for 34).[6] Meanwhile, the Jehovah’s Witnesses prevailed 25 times out of 98 opinions, for a success rate of roughly 26 percent. [7]

What accounts for the higher frequency of Jehovah’s Witnesses seeking and winning asylum? Part of it has to do with its faithful’s refusal to be part of any organized military, which makes mandatory conscription in any country a form of actionable persecution. Another factor might be where these cases are brought. Of the various circuit courts of appeal, the Tenth Circuit (where Utah is located) granted relief to only five percent of claimants from these four faiths. In contrast, the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) granted relief in 33 percent, the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut) granted 29 percent, and the Ninth Circuit (California, Arizona, Idaho and other Pacific states) also granted in 29 percent of the cases. The lesson here might be simple: Mormon aliens should file asylum claims in Idaho, California or Arizona or anywhere else in the 9th Circuit, rather than in Utah.

What are the worst places to be a member of these religions? In terms of asylum claims, the most common countries members of these faiths feared being sent home to were Armenia (27 opinions, most involving Jehovah’s Witnesses)[8] and Indonesia (24 opinions, most involving Adventists),[9] followed by Eritrea (15), Russia (12), Romania (9) and China (8). In terms of highest percentage of claimants winning in the courts, war-torn Eritrea had the highest percentage (six of the 15 claims), all of whom were Jehovah’s Witnesses.[10]

What about the Mormons? China [11] and Russia [12] (three cases each) appear to be the places from which the most fearful Mormons hail, although asylum petitions were granted to alien LDS members from Colombia,[13] Iran,[14] Ethiopia,[15] Russia [16] and Ukraine.[17]

What is the take-away of this analysis? For one, it cannot be said that Mormons are more persecuted overseas than other American religions like the Jehovah’s Witnesses (ironic, given that the Witnesses’ missionary efforts are rarely touted).  Mormons seem about as persecuted overseas as Adventists, though they are more successful at proving their case in court. Compared with Jehovah’ Witnesses, Mormons living in foreign countries are not persecuted nearly as much.

Still, reading these cases – even those where asylum is ultimately not granted – can be a heartbreaking experience, no matter the minority religion and no matter the country. Man-made tragedy abounds.

Maybe there is hope that these cases will slow to a trickle, after all the growth we have seen since the start of the 20th Century. As of this writing (three quarters of the way through 2009), the total number of asylum decisions involving these American religions totaled only six, compared with four times that many in 2008. Here is a chart showing the trajectory of Mormon asylum opinions over time:

There has not yet been a single asylum case involving a Mormon issued this year. Perhaps if fewer foreign Mormons are feeling persecuted, it might be the start of a trend, and mean that the spike between 2004 and 2007 might have been a storm that has passed. We can only hope.

________________

[1] Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2004)(feared persecution in Kenya)

[2] The Mormon asylum cases, in chronological order, are: Shirazi-Parsa v. I.N.S., 14 F.3d 1424 (9th Cir. 1994); Refahiyat v. U.S. Dept. of Justice I.N.S., 29 F.3d 553 (10th Cir. 1994); Oloson v. I.N.S., 51 F.3d 1045 (5th Cir. 1995); Narvaez-Diaz v. I.N.S., 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996); Vorobieva v. I.N.S., 172 F.3d 64 (10th Cir. 1999); Yunus v. I.N.S., 176 F.3d 490 (10th Cir. 1999); Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2000); Mendoza v. I.N.S., 28 Fed.Appx. 586 (8th Cir. 2002); Davila v. Ashcroft, 33 Fed.Appx. 703 (5th Cir. 2002); Igoshin v. I.N.S., 50 Fed.Appx. 905 (10th Cir. 2002); Villeda v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed.Appx. 636 (9th Cir. 2004); Rodriguez-Pozos v. Ashcroft, 109 Fed.Appx. 906 (9th Cir. 2004); Ashmawy v. Gonzales, 130 Fed.Appx. 71 (8th Cir. 2005); Koval v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2005); Pogai v. Gonzales, 160 Fed.Appx. 564 (9th Cir. 2005); De Maerschalck v. Gonzales, 159 Fed.Appx. 29 (10th Cir. 2005); Otero v. Gonzales,164 Fed.Appx. 732 (10th Cir. 2006); Yan v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2006); Brown v. Gonzales, 174 Fed.Appx. 710 (3rd Cir. 2006); Gomez v. Gonzales, 179 Fed.Appx. 220 (5th Cir. 2006); Morales v. Gonzales, 188 Fed.Appx. 780 (10th Cir. 2006); Wang v. Gonzales, 207 Fed.Appx. 130 (2nd Cir. 2006); Liang Wen v. Gonzales, 223 Fed.Appx. 674 (9th Cir. 2007); Hadera v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1154(9th Cir. 2007); Simonchyk v. Keisler, 251 Fed.Appx. 730 (2nd Cir. 2007); Dan Zhu Wong v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 271 Fed.Appx. 77 (2nd Cir. 2008); and Malkandi v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2008).

[3] The Adventist asylum cases, in chronological order, are: Gebremichael v. I.N.S.,10 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1993); Magdici v. I.N.S.,29 F.3d 119 (7th Cir. 1997); Sahensolar v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 1998); Sofinet v. I.N.S., 196 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 1999); Tsoy v. Ashcroft, 83 Fed.Appx. 982 (9th Cir. 2003); Asatryan v. Ashcroft, 99 Fed.Appx. 768 (9th Cir. 2004); Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2004); Kondakova v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2004); Setyawan v. Ashcroft, 111 Fed.Appx. 579 (10th Cir. 2004); Silitonga v. Gonzales, 160 Fed.Appx. 782 (10th Cir. 2005); Fantaye v. Gonzales, 161 Fed.Appx. 681 (9th Cir. 2006); Nazarian v. Gonzales, 171 Fed.Appx. 78 (9th Cir. 2006); Peter v. Gonzales, 183 Fed.Appx. 805 (10th Cir. 2006); Poerwantini v. Gonzales, 217 Fed.Appx. 592 (8th Cir. 2007); Tretiakova v. Gonzales, 221 Fed.Appx. 639 (9th Cir. 2007); Floroiu v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 970 (7th Cir. 2007); Panjaitan v. Gonzales, 224 Fed.Appx. 853 (10th Cir. 2007); Lumbangaol v. Keisler, 258 Fed.Appx. 167 (10th Cir. 2007); Gill v. Attorney General of U.S., 258 Fed.Appx. 460 (3rd Cir. 2007); Sibuea v. Mukasey, 260 Fed.Appx. 43 (10th Cir. 2007); Rotinsulu v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008); Sitompul v. Mukasey, 272 Fed.Appx. 696 (10th Cir. 2008); Harahap v. Attorney General of U.S., 275 Fed.Appx. 95 (3rd Cir. 2008); Esfandiary v. Mukasey, 277 Fed.Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2008); Liem v. Attorney General of U.S., 280 Fed.Appx. 206 (3rd Cir. 2008); Zakarias v. Attorney General of U.S., 280 Fed.Appx. 197 (3rd Cir. 2008); Kamuh v. Mukasey, 280 Fed.Appx. 7 (1st Cir. 2008); Wontas v. Mukasey, 286 Fed.Appx. 510 (9th Cir. 2008); Manullang v. Mukasey, 291 Fed.Appx. 892 (10th Cir. 2008); Tendean v. Mukasey, 292 Fed.Appx. 633 (9th Cir. 2008); Umar v. Mukasey, 294 Fed.Appx. 353 (9th Cir. 2008); Siahaan v. Mukasey, 301 Fed.Appx. 768 (10th Cir. 2008); Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2009); and Kojo v. Holder, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1396836 (9th Cir. 2009)

[4]The 98 Jehovah’s Witnesses asylum cases to reach the courts of appeal, in chronological order, are: Canas-Segovia v. I.N.S., 902 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1990); Olmedo-Carrillo v. I.N.S., 908 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1990); Ohaya v. I.N.S., 9 F.3d 117 (10th Cir. 1993); Gebregiorgis v. I.N.S., 15 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 1994); Romero v. I.N.S., 54 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 1995); Molina-Salinas v. I.N.S., 66 F.3d 335 (9th Cir. 1995); Dobrican v. I.N.S., 77 F.3d 164 (7th Cir. 1996); Vega-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 85 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 1996); Del Carmen Aviles v. I.N.S., 82 F.3d 422 (9th Cir. 1996); Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 82 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 1996); Duarte-Perla v. I.N.S., 107 F.3d 15 (9th Cir. 1997); Zambrana-Cuadra v. I.N.S., 108 F.3d 340 (9th Cir. 1997); Bucur v. I.N.S., 109 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 1997); Mejia-Paiz v. I.N.S., 111 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 1997); Adriano v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 1999); Foroglou v. I.N.S., 170 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 1999); Essome v. U.S. I.N.S., 173 F.3d 850 (4th Cir. 1999); Adhanom v. I.N.S., 173 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1999); Castellanos-Castillo v. I.N.S., 191 F.3d 459 (9th Cir. 1999); Sidhu v. I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2000); Pop v. I.N.S., 270 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2001); Pop v. I.N.S., 279 F.3d 457 (7th Cir. 2002); Pop v. I.N.S., 55 Fed.Appx. 375 (7th Cir. 2003); Tesfu v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 477 (7th Cir. 2003); Reyes-Melendez v. I.N.S., 342 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2003); Berhane v. Ashcroft, 78 Fed.Appx. 339 (5th Cir. 2003); Karacsony v. Ashcroft, 83 Fed.Appx. 167 (9th Cir. 2003); Medhin v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2003); Chen v. Ashcroft, 85 Fed.Appx. 44 (9th Cir. 2003); Izazaga v. Ashcroft, 85 Fed.Appx. 635 (9th Cir. 2004); Muhur v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2004); Tsaturyan v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed.Appx. 37 (9th Cir. 2004); Xue v. Ashcroft, 93 Fed.Appx. 380 (3rd Cir. 2004); Margaryan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 525 (9th Cir. 2004); Woldemariam v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 537 (9th Cir. 2004); Gevorgyan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 554 (9th Cir. 2004); Manukyan v. U.S., 96 Fed.Appx. 77 (3rd Cir. 2004); Hayrapetyan v. Ashcroft, 98 Fed.Appx. 625 (9th Cir. 2004); Suzdaltseva v. Ashcroft, 102 Fed.Appx. 565 (9th Cir. 2004); Saldivar-Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 107 Fed.Appx. 68 (9th Cir. 2004); Martirosyan v. Ashcroft, 107 Fed.Appx. 125 (9th Cir. 2004); Nigussie v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2004); Babayan v. Ashcroft, 110 Fed.Appx. 43 (9th Cir. 2004); Pananyan v. Ashcroft, 110 Fed.Appx. 787 (9th Cir. 2004); Sargsyan v. Ashcroft, 109 Fed.Appx. 989 (9th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1116 (7th Cir. 2004); Tsegay v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1347 (10th Cir. 2004); Tewelde v. Ashcroft, 114 Fed.Appx. 91 (4th Cir. 2004); Levit v. Ashcroft, 116 Fed.Appx. 394 (3rd Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 2004); Mogos v. Ashcroft, 117 Fed.Appx. 553 (9th Cir. 2004); Vaskanyan v. Ashcroft, 118 Fed.Appx. 200 (9th Cir. 2004); Mirzoyan v. Ashcroft, 120 Fed.Appx. 193 (9th Cir. 2005); Badalyan v. Gonzales, 121 Fed.Appx. 268 (9th Cir. 2005); Sun v. Gonzales, 126 Fed.Appx. 799 (9th Cir. 2005); Markosyan v. Gonzales, 127 Fed.Appx. 954 (9th Cir. 2005); Barsegian v. Gonzales,128 Fed.Appx. 633 (9th Cir. 2005); Patatanyan v. Gonzales, 132 Fed.Appx. 124 (9th Cir. 2005); Nikoghosyan v. Gonzales, 133 Fed.Appx. 450 (9th Cir. 2005); Bangsawa v. U.S. Attorney General, 136 Fed.Appx. 240 (11th Cir. 2005); Petrov v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,135 Fed.Appx. 377 (11th Cir. 2005); Tjen v. Gonzales, 143 Fed.Appx. 405 (3rd Cir. 2005); Fessehaye v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005); Koulian v. Gonzales, 154 Fed.Appx. 642 (9th Cir. 2005); Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2nd Cir. 2006); Mikhaleva v. Gonzales, 167 Fed.Appx. 633 99th Cir. 2006); Israelyan v. Gonzales, 171 Fed.Appx. 85 (9th Cir. 2006); Woldemichael v. Ashcroft, 448 F.3d 1000 (8h Cir. 2006); Azimov v. Gonzales, 181 Fed.Appx. 601 (7th Cir. 2006); Henrys v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 184 Fed.Appx. 822 (11th Cir. 2006); Nwokeafor v. U.S. Atty. Gen., Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1594189 (11th Cir. 2006); Teclezghi v. Gonzales, 187 Fed.Appx. 749 (9th Cir. 2006); Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006); Berhe v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2006); Mezvrishvili v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 467 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006); Gabriel-Perez v. Gonzales, 210 Fed.Appx. 723 (9th Cir. 2006); Mkrtchyan v. Gonzales, 215 Fed.Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2006); Kutchaidze v. Gonzales, 218 Fed.Appx. 553 (8th Cir. 2007); Anjelia v. Gonzales, 226 Fed.Appx. 662 (9th Cir. 2007); Sarkisian v. Gonzales, 228 Fed.Appx. 654 (9th Cir. 2007); Feng Chen v. Gonzales, 224 Fed.Appx. 101 (2nd Cir. 2007); Osepashvili v. Gonzales, 235 Fed.Appx. 806 (2nd Cir. 2007); Mironova v. Attorney General of the U.S., 259 Fed.Appx. 503 (3rd Cir. 2008); Kantourian v. Michael Mukasey, 265 Fed.Appx. 657 (9th Cir. 2008); Chelle v. Attorney General of U.S., 264 Fed.Appx. 199 (3rd Cir. 2008); Shakhijanyan v. Mukasey, 268 Fed.Appx. 511 (9th Cir. 2008); Khudaverdyan v. Mukasey, 273 Fed.Appx. 618 (9th Cir. 2008); Kupczyk v. Attorney General of U.S., 283 Fed.Appx. 44 (3rd Cir. 2008); Paomey v. Mukasey, 282 Fed.Appx. 691 (10th Cir. 2008);Zodelava v. Attorney General of U.S., 290 Fed.Appx. 504 (3rd Cir. 2008); Avagyan v. Mukasey, 291 Fed.Appx. 825 (9th Cir. 2008);Aytayan v. Mukasey, 294 Fed.Appx. 360 (9th Cir. 2008); Ghukasyan v. Mukasey, 306 Fed.Appx. 369 (9th Cir. 2008); Vardanyan v. Mukasey, 305 Fed.Appx. 474 (9th Cir. 2008); Gordeziani v. Attorney General of U.S., 321 Fed.Appx. 139 (3rd Cir. 2009); Yan Lan Hong v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 320 Fed.Appx. 98 (2nd Cir. 2009); Shvetsov v. Holder, 324 Fed.Appx. 678 (9th Cir. 2009); and Kauspadas v. Holder, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1427106 (7th Cir. 2009).

[5] The five successful Mormon asylum claims were in Shirazi-Parsa v. I.N.S., 14 F.3d 1424 (9th Cir. 1994); Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2000); Mendoza v. I.N.S., 28 Fed.Appx. 586 (8th Cir. 2002); Koval v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2005); Morales v. Gonzales, 188 Fed.Appx. 780 (10th Cir. 2006); Hadera v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1154(9th Cir. 2007).

[6] The three successful Adventist asylum claims were in Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2004)(Burma); Tretiakova v. Gonzales, 221 Fed.Appx. 639 (9th Cir. 2007)(Russia); and Floroiu v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 970 (7th Cir. 2007)(Romania).

[7] The 25 claims by Jehovah’s Witnesses that were successful were in Canas-Segovia v. I.N.S., 902 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1990); Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 82 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 1996); Adriano v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 1999); Adhanom v. I.N.S., 173 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1999); Castellanos-Castillo v. I.N.S.,191 F.3d 459 (9th Cir. 1999); Sidhu v. I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2000); Reyes-Melendez v. I.N.S., 342 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2003); Chen v. Ashcroft, 85 Fed.Appx. 44 (9th Cir. 2003); Muhur v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2004); Tsaturyan v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed.Appx. 37 (9th Cir. 2004); Margaryan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 525 (9th Cir. 2004); Gevorgyan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 554 (9th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1116 (7th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 2004); Mogos v. Ashcroft, 117 Fed.Appx. 553 (9th Cir. 2004); Badalyan v. Gonzales, 121 Fed.Appx. 268 (9th Cir. 2005); Sun v. Gonzales, 126 Fed.Appx. 799 (9th Cir. 2005); Nikoghosyan v. Gonzales, 133 Fed.Appx. 450 (9th Cir. 2005); Fessehaye v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005); Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2nd Cir. 2006); Berhe v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2006); Mezvrishvili v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 467 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006); Mkrtchyan v. Gonzales, 215 Fed.Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2006); Anjelia v. Gonzales, 226 Fed.Appx. 662 (9th Cir. 2007); and Osepashvili v. Gonzales, 235 Fed.Appx. 806 (2nd Cir. 2007).

[8] The 25 Jehovah’s Witness asylum claims involving Armenia were in Tsaturyan v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed.Appx. 37 (9th Cir. 2004); Margaryan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 525 (9th Cir. 2004); Gevorgyan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 554 (9th Cir. 2004); Manukyan v. U.S., 96 Fed.Appx. 77 (3rd Cir. 2004); Hayrapetyan v. Ashcroft, 98 Fed.Appx. 625 (9th Cir. 2004); Martirosyan v. Ashcroft, 107 Fed.Appx. 125 (9th Cir. 2004); Babayan v. Ashcroft, 110 Fed.Appx. 43 (9th Cir. 2004); Pananyan v. Ashcroft, 110 Fed.Appx. 787 (9th Cir. 2004); Sargsyan v. Ashcroft, 109 Fed.Appx. 989 (9th Cir. 2004); Vaskanyan v. Ashcroft, 118 Fed.Appx. 200 (9th Cir. 2004); Mirzoyan v. Ashcroft, 120 Fed.Appx. 193 (9th Cir. 2005); Badalyan v. Gonzales, 121 Fed.Appx. 268 (9th Cir. 2005); Markosyan v. Gonzales, 127 Fed.Appx. 954 (9th Cir. 2005); Barsegian v. Gonzales, 128 Fed.Appx. 633 (9th Cir. 2005); Patatanyan v. Gonzales, 132 Fed.Appx. 124 (9th Cir. 2005); Nikoghosyan v. Gonzales, 133 Fed.Appx. 450 (9th Cir. 2005); Israelyan v. Gonzales, 171 Fed.Appx. 85 (9th Cir. 2006); Mkrtchyan v. Gonzales, 215 Fed.Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2006); Sarkisian v. Gonzales, 228 Fed.Appx. 654 (9th Cir. 2007); Kantourian v. Michael Mukasey, 265 Fed.Appx. 657 (9th Cir. 2008); Shakhijanyan v. Mukasey, 268 Fed.Appx. 511 (9th Cir. 2008); Khudaverdyan v. Mukasey, 273 Fed.Appx. 618 (9th Cir. 2008); Avagyan v. Mukasey, 291 Fed.Appx. 825 (9th Cir. 2008); Vardanyan v. Mukasey, 305 Fed.Appx. 474 (9th Cir. 2008); and Ghukasyan v. Mukasey, 306 Fed.Appx. 369 (9th Cir. 2008).

[9] The 21 Adventist claims involving Indonesia are in Sahensolar v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 1998); Setyawan v. Ashcroft, 111 Fed.Appx. 579 (10th Cir. 2004); Silitonga v. Gonzales, 160 Fed.Appx. 782 (10th Cir. 2005); Peter v. Gonzales, 183 Fed.Appx. 805 (10th Cir. 2006); Poerwantini v. Gonzales, 217 Fed.Appx. 592 (8th Cir. 2007); Panjaitan v. Gonzales, 224 Fed.Appx. 853 (10th Cir. 2007); Lumbangaol v. Keisler, 258 Fed.Appx. 167 (10th Cir. 2007); Sibuea v. Mukasey, 260 Fed.Appx. 43 (10th Cir. 2007); Rotinsulu v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008); Sitompul v. Mukasey, 272 Fed.Appx. 696 (10th Cir. 2008); Harahap v. Attorney General of U.S., 275 Fed.Appx. 95 (3rd Cir. 2008); Esfandiary v. Mukasey, 277 Fed.Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2008); Liem v. Attorney General of U.S., 280 Fed.Appx. 206 (3rd Cir. 2008); Zakarias v. Attorney General of U.S., 280 Fed.Appx. 197 (3rd Cir. 2008); Kamuh v. Mukasey, 280 Fed.Appx. 7 (1st Cir. 2008); Wontas v. Mukasey, 286 Fed.Appx. 510 (9th Cir. 2008); Manullang v. Mukasey, 291 Fed.Appx. 892 (10th Cir. 2008); Tendean v. Mukasey, 292 Fed.Appx. 633 (9th Cir. 2008); Umar v. Mukasey, 294 Fed.Appx. 353 (9th Cir. 2008); Siahaan v. Mukasey, 301 Fed.Appx. 768 (10th Cir. 2008); and Kojo v. Holder, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1396836 (9th Cir. 2009).

[10] The six successful Jehovah’s Witness claims involving Eritrea were in Adhanom v. I.N.S., 173 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1999); Muhur v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1116 (7th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 2004);Mogos v. Ashcroft, 117 Fed.Appx. 553 (9th Cir. 2004); and Fessehaye v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005).

[11] Wang v. Gonzales, 207 Fed.Appx. 130 (2nd Cir. 2006); Liang Wen v. Gonzales, 223 Fed.Appx. 674 (9th Cir. 2007); Dan Zhu Wong v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 271 Fed.Appx. 77 (2nd Cir. 2008).

[12] Vorobieva v. I.N.S., 172 F.3d 64 (10th Cir. 1999); Yunus v. I.N.S., 176 F.3d 490 (10th Cir. 1999); Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2000); Igoshin v. I.N.S., 50 Fed.Appx. 905 (10th Cir. 2002).

[13] Morales v. Gonzales, 188 Fed.Appx. 780 (10th Cir. 2006);

[14] Shirazi-Parsa v. I.N.S., 14 F.3d 1424 (9th Cir. 1994);

[15] Hadera v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1154(9th Cir. 2007)

[16] Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2000)

[17] Koval v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2005)

One of the top fifteen factors that can transform a reasonable, amiable, friendly person with reasonable, friendly beliefs and ideas into a ranting, screaming, judgmental zealot with poisonous, nauseating, self-righteous dreck for beliefs.

A member of the Church cannot go many Sundays without hearing about the fortitude of early Saints in overcoming persecution.  A fast and testimony meeting often includes statements about persecution against the Church in the past or present.

Persecution, persecution, persecution!

When Joseph Smith was murdered, the New York Herald printed:

The death of the modern mahomet will seal the fate of Mormonism.  They cannot get another Joe Smith.  The holy city must tumble into ruins, and the ‘latter-day saints’ have indeed come to the latter day.

Little did the New York Herald and many of the Church’s critics know that persecution and tragedy can bring a people closer and make them stronger.

Such is the case with Mormonism.  While there were divisions and schisms (schisms which included many prominent members), the majority of the early Saints followed Brigham Young after Joseph Smith’s death, building a strong and unified Church in the mountains of Utah.

The writings of Brigham Young and Church leaders found in the Journal of Discourses and other sources are filled with rants about the persecution the Church suffered.  It was a constant subject that was no doubt continuously on the minds of the entire Mormon Church.  This is understandable, as the Church was continually subject to misconceptions, unwarranted criticism and unfriendly government intervention.  They were living through persecution.

However, as the Church became more and more accepted by others and granted equal rights, the constant banter of persecution did not cease. And even today, with the Church enjoying many of the rights and privileges early Saints could only dream of, the Church continues to complain about persecution or reflect on past persecution.

With an “us vs. them” attitude, members will cry injustice or discrimination at the drop of a hat.  Some allow this attitude to grow into arrogance and bitterness toward others.

I have seen cool-headed members blow their tops at protesters at Temple Square.  I have seen missionaries jump into attack mode at the slightest mention of criticism from those they teach.

Does the church suffer from persecution complex?  And are the side effects of a persecution complex in some ways as dangerous as persecution itself?  What do you think?

Rather than spend too much time deconstructing this lesson, I will refer the teachers to the write-up done by douglashunter on feastuponthewordblog.  I am not going to present this week’s lesson in the usual form, but instead just posit a few questions as food for thought.

The lesson brings up a few interesting points about Joseph’s views on suffering.  Specifically, suffering is a means to a religious end:

• God tests us through our trials.
• Suffering puts us on par with “the ancients.”

What the lesson doesn’t talk about is the fact that not all suffering fits these categories, and most of the suffering endured in the examples in the lesson is related to physical torture at the hands of individuals who were persecuting Joseph for religious reasons.  What is not addressed, but will likely be inferred by everyone in the class (and is somewhat implied by the picture of an intubated hospital patient visiting with family included in the manual) is that ALL suffering, even just inconvenience or illness, could be a trial of our faith designed to test us and put us on par with the ancients.  Nothing in the text really says that, and it seems like a problematic conclusion.  What about:

• trials we bring on ourselves through our own stupidity or lack of foresight?
• trials brought upon us through happenstance?
• trials caused by individuals who are exercising their free agency to our detriment?
• trials endured by an individual that have no basis in religion whatsover?

On the upside, the lesson does seem to encourage us to rely on others and on God in our trials.  On the downside, there may be a tendency to believe that our trials are always from God, are always a test of our muster, or are always ultimately for our benefit.  Obviously, being the victim of sexual abuse doesn’t really fit this stereotype, and there are many other possible examples.

The problem with this view is similar to concepts shared in the Karpman Triangle.  The Karpman Triangle explains mental games that people play (perceptions of reality) that are self-fulfilling and actually stall one’s progress as an individual.  In the Karpman Triangle, events and interactions are viewed as having a victim, a persecutor, and a rescuer.  In the example of the tarring & feathering that took place at the John Johnson home, the story is retold with the Karpman Triangle players all intact:  Sidney and Joseph are the victims, the mob is the persecutor, and Joseph’s friends and wife are the rescuers.  In this case, the model may be fairly accurate.  In many cases it is not, but it gives individuals an excuse for unproductive behavior.

The problem with this model is that it absolves “victims” of responsibility or the need to take action; it villifies “persecutors” in a very black and white manner, and it ennobles “rescuers” to an extent that they don’t necessarily merit.  Sometimes, victims are complicit.  Sometimes rescuers are self-serving busybodies, and sometimes persecutors are victims of circumstance, misunderstanding, or accident.

So, what do you think?  Is the view of suffering as a means to religious ends helpful or harmful or both?  Discuss.