Court Broadens Rules for Political Refugees

In a decision that appears to broaden the kind of “political opinions” for which refugees may seek asylum in the United States, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday blocked the deportation of an El Salvador woman who had fled from months of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of a sergeant in the Salvadoran armed forces.

In a 2-1 opinion that a dissenting judge said holds that “male chauvinism is itself a political opinion,” the court ruled that Olimpia Lazo-Majano has a right to seek political refuge from the man she said raped her, dragged her by the hair and nearly blinded her while threatening to murder her as a subversive if she resisted.

“If the situation is seen in its social context, (the sergeant) is asserting the political opinion that a man has a right to dominate and he has persecuted Olimpia to force her to accept this opinion without rebellion,” Judge John T. Noonan Jr. wrote for the majority.

The decision, written by a recent appointee of President Reagan who is ordinarily one of the court’s most conservative members, expands on the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 9 ruling that held that the thousands of refugees seeking political asylum do not have to prove a “clear probability” of arrest or torture if sent home, but merely a well-founded fear of persecution.

In this case, Lazo-Majano’s fear of persecution was not at issue. Neither the immigration judge nor the Board of Immigration Appeals that earlier upheld her deportation order questioned her account of what happened. The appellate court was asked to decide whether the persecution she faced was personal, as the government contended, or political.

Lazo-Majano’s husband, a member of a rightist paramilitary group, had left El Salvador in 1981 for political reasons. But Lazo-Majano, her attorney said, was never politically active and belonged to no organizations.

In April of 1982, Sgt. Rene Zuniga, a man she had known since childhood, hired her to wash his clothes, according to the factual record established at trial. Six weeks later, he raped her at gunpoint, launching months of physical and sexual abuse.

Lazo-Majano testified that Zuniga broke her identity card and forced her to eat the pieces. He dragged her by the hair through a public restaurant. He pummeled her face, causing a blood clot to form in one eye. On one occasion, he held two hand grenades against her forehead.

Lazo-Majano said the sergeant told her that if she ever told on him or attempted to flee, he would cut her tongue out, remove her nails one by one and pull out her eyes, then kill her, saying he would justify it by branding her a subversive.

The 34-year-old woman, having witnessed other killings at the hands of the military, believed him. “In her view, there was nobody in El Salvador that could stop the Armed Force from doing such things,” the court said. In 1982, she fled to Phoenix, Ariz., where she still lives.

“Persecution is stamped on every page of this record,” Noonan wrote, joined by liberal Judge Harry Pregerson. “Was Olimpia, however, persecuted by an agent of the government because she had a political opinion, or was the relation of Olimpia and Zuniga purely personal?

“When ‘political opinion’ in the sense (defined by the law) is analyzed, it must mean ‘the political opinion of the victim as seen by the persecutor,’ ” the court ruled.

Lazo-Majano’s resistance to Zuniga, the court majority suggested, reflected in the sergeant’s mind “an assertion of a political aspiration” that had to be suppressed, and that belief “is what counts” under the law, the court held.

“Olimpia was not permitted by Zuniga to hold an opinion to the contrary. When by flight she asserted one, she became exposed to persecution for her assertion. Persecution threatened her because of her political opinion.”

Judge Cecil F. Poole in a dissenting opinion said that while Lazo-Majano may certainly have suffered emotional and physical abuse, it was “clearly personal” in nature and did not constitute political persecution.

“It is the majority’s thesis that male chauvinism is itself a political opinion and male domination, particularly when exercised by any police officer or member of the military, however low of rank, constitutes political persecution,” Judge Poole complained.

“Quite simply, the majority has outdone Lewis Carroll in its application of the term ‘political opinion,’ ” he wrote.

The Supreme Court last month eased the standards for granting political asylum to refugees when it rejected arguments by the Reagan Administration that aliens should be required to demonstrate “a greater than 50% chance of persecution” if returned home. The ruling was expected to renew hope by thousands of refugees denied asylum under stricter standards.

Lazo-Majano’s attorney, R. Lee Hagelshaw, said the 9th Circuit’s ruling may help a broad cross-section of immigrants prove that the persecution they faced was indeed political, as required under the law.