Tweet
Courthouse News Service
July 1 2011
Defying Armenian Drug Lord May Foster Asylum
By TIM HULL
(CN) - Immigration officials should consider granting the asylum
petition of an Armenian woman fighting to bring down a violent,
politically connected drug dealer in her native land, the 9th Circuit
ruled.
Nune Antonyan had to flee Armenia after she testified against
Hovhannesyan Andranik, an alleged drug dealer with corrupt friends in
the highest levels of government. Antonyan and her husband had
received threats and endured "physical beatings, warnings to remain
silent, and death threats from Andranik and his henchmen, as well as
threats and intransigence from the government," according to a ruling
published Wednesday.
Antonyan's troubles began when she upbraided Andranik, not
knowing who he was, for cursing at her neighbor. After Andranik told
her to mind her own business, Antonyan called the police, but they
refused to follow up. Antonyan soon found out that Andranik was a
major drug dealer who worked as an informant for the police, and that
he did not appreciate her complaints. He warned her off, pushing her
to the ground and kicking her. Later, he beat up her husband in the
couple's apartment.
Undeterred, Antonyan took her complaints to a national security
investigator, and eventually secured Andranik's arrest with a promise
to testify against him. She did so, but he was soon released by his
friends in the government and resumed his threats, the ruling states.
Fearing for her life, Antonyan fled to the United States on a
visitor visa, leaving her husband and children behind in Armenia.
After she overstayed her visa, she requested asylum, claiming
that if she were sent back to Armenia she would not be protected from
Andranik's wrath. While an immigration judge found Antonyan's story
credible, he denied her petition, and the Board of Immigration Appeals
did the same. The board ruled that she had failed to show that her
whistle-blowing activities were linked to politics, finding instead
that she merely had a personal dispute with a criminal and a few
corrupt police officials.
The San Francisco-based federal appeals panel reversed that
finding on Wednesday, ruling that Antonyan's petition should get
another look.
"In pursuing Andranik's prosecution, Antonyan sought more than
an end to his drug-dealing and violence in her community; she also
hoped to expose his crooked ties to law enforcement agencies who
refused to protect the citizenry," Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the
unanimous three-judge panel. "The record belies the government's
suggestion that Antonyan aimed at only a private criminal or a few
public officials. To be sure, when she first contacted police,
Antonyan did not know of Andranik's 'very influential protectors.'
That her initial reports stemmed from a 'personal dispute' does not
render her later acts any less 'political,' however."
Thomas added that Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had "failed
to credit evidence that [Andranik's] motives were not exclusively
'personal.'"
"While the BIA correctly found that 'revenge' motivated
Andranik, significant credible evidence establishes that he also acted
because Antyonyan sought to expose his corrupt relationships to the
government," Thomas wrote. "Andranik's bribes, drug business, and work
as an informant made him 'valuable' to the police and prosecutors, and
won him protection from high-ranking officials."
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/01/37852.htm
July 1 2011
Defying Armenian Drug Lord May Foster Asylum
By TIM HULL
(CN) - Immigration officials should consider granting the asylum
petition of an Armenian woman fighting to bring down a violent,
politically connected drug dealer in her native land, the 9th Circuit
ruled.
Nune Antonyan had to flee Armenia after she testified against
Hovhannesyan Andranik, an alleged drug dealer with corrupt friends in
the highest levels of government. Antonyan and her husband had
received threats and endured "physical beatings, warnings to remain
silent, and death threats from Andranik and his henchmen, as well as
threats and intransigence from the government," according to a ruling
published Wednesday.
Antonyan's troubles began when she upbraided Andranik, not
knowing who he was, for cursing at her neighbor. After Andranik told
her to mind her own business, Antonyan called the police, but they
refused to follow up. Antonyan soon found out that Andranik was a
major drug dealer who worked as an informant for the police, and that
he did not appreciate her complaints. He warned her off, pushing her
to the ground and kicking her. Later, he beat up her husband in the
couple's apartment.
Undeterred, Antonyan took her complaints to a national security
investigator, and eventually secured Andranik's arrest with a promise
to testify against him. She did so, but he was soon released by his
friends in the government and resumed his threats, the ruling states.
Fearing for her life, Antonyan fled to the United States on a
visitor visa, leaving her husband and children behind in Armenia.
After she overstayed her visa, she requested asylum, claiming
that if she were sent back to Armenia she would not be protected from
Andranik's wrath. While an immigration judge found Antonyan's story
credible, he denied her petition, and the Board of Immigration Appeals
did the same. The board ruled that she had failed to show that her
whistle-blowing activities were linked to politics, finding instead
that she merely had a personal dispute with a criminal and a few
corrupt police officials.
The San Francisco-based federal appeals panel reversed that
finding on Wednesday, ruling that Antonyan's petition should get
another look.
"In pursuing Andranik's prosecution, Antonyan sought more than
an end to his drug-dealing and violence in her community; she also
hoped to expose his crooked ties to law enforcement agencies who
refused to protect the citizenry," Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the
unanimous three-judge panel. "The record belies the government's
suggestion that Antonyan aimed at only a private criminal or a few
public officials. To be sure, when she first contacted police,
Antonyan did not know of Andranik's 'very influential protectors.'
That her initial reports stemmed from a 'personal dispute' does not
render her later acts any less 'political,' however."
Thomas added that Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had "failed
to credit evidence that [Andranik's] motives were not exclusively
'personal.'"
"While the BIA correctly found that 'revenge' motivated
Andranik, significant credible evidence establishes that he also acted
because Antyonyan sought to expose his corrupt relationships to the
government," Thomas wrote. "Andranik's bribes, drug business, and work
as an informant made him 'valuable' to the police and prosecutors, and
won him protection from high-ranking officials."
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/01/37852.htm