## Facts

- Saideh Fisher, an Iranian national, entered the United States and applied for asylum and withholding of deportation.
- Fisher based her claim on Iran’s gender-specific rules requiring women to wear a veil in public and related morality restrictions, asserting she opposed those rules.
- In the deportation proceedings initiated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Fisher testified about two main incidents in Iran:
  - She was arrested, handcuffed, and detained after authorities found her wearing a bathing suit in the presence of an unrelated man.
  - She was arrested by government agents or vigilantes after strands of hair escaped her chador, which Iranian women are required to wear in public.
- An immigration judge (IJ) denied asylum and withholding, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Fisher’s appeal.
- A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel initially remanded to the BIA, concluding the agency had used an improper definition of persecution and had not adequately addressed future persecution or whether Fisher’s harm could be tied to a protected ground such as religion or political opinion.
- The Ninth Circuit then granted rehearing en banc, withdrew the panel opinion, and reconsidered the case.

## Issues

1. Whether Fisher’s past mistreatment and feared future harm arising from enforcement of Iran’s veiling and morality laws qualified as “persecution” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
2. Whether the record compelled the conclusion that any harm Fisher suffered or feared was “on account of” a protected ground, such as religion or political opinion, rather than enforcement of generally applicable laws.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that Fisher failed to establish eligibility for asylum and, therefore, the higher standard required for withholding of deportation.

## Decision

- The en banc Ninth Circuit affirmed the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of deportation.
- The court held that the record did not compel a finding that Fisher faced persecution on account of religion or political opinion, as required for asylum.
- The court treated Fisher’s claimed harm largely as the risk of prosecution or punishment for violating Iran’s dress and morality laws, explaining that the possibility of prosecution under such laws is not, by itself, persecution on a protected ground.
- Because Fisher did not satisfy the standard for asylum, she necessarily failed to satisfy the more demanding standard for withholding of deportation.

## Legal Principles

- A petitioner seeking asylum must show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution that is linked to a protected ground (such as religion or political opinion).
- Punishment or the risk of punishment under a law of general applicability is generally characterized as prosecution, not persecution, unless the applicant proves the enforcement is tied to a protected ground in the manner required by the statute.
- The “on account of” requirement demands more than showing harsh or discriminatory conditions; it requires a legally sufficient connection between the harm and a protected ground.
- Courts review the BIA’s factual determinations under the substantial-evidence standard and will not reverse unless the record compels a contrary conclusion.
- Withholding of deportation requires a stronger showing than asylum; failure to meet the asylum standard typically defeats withholding.

## Conclusion

Fisher II held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding where Fisher’s asserted mistreatment stemmed from enforcement of Iran’s veiling and morality rules, and the record did not compel the conclusion that the harm was inflicted on account of Fisher’s religion or political opinion rather than as prosecution for violating generally applicable laws.


Fisher v. Immigration and Naturalization Service [Fisher II], 79 F.3d 955 (1996)