## Facts

- Ebrahim Sadeghi, an Iranian national, entered the United States on a visitor visa in 1988 and overstayed.
- INS initiated deportation proceedings in 1989; Sadeghi conceded deportability and applied for asylum and withholding of deportation, claiming fear of arrest, torture, or death if returned to Iran.
- Sadeghi testified he had long-standing anti-regime involvement and held anti-Islamic views; he worked as a school principal and later obtained a teaching job in Iran after returning from France in 1982.
- He stated he discouraged religious instruction and “hinted” to students about anti-Islamic views; after discouraging a student from going to the Iran–Iraq war, he believed the student reported him.
- In April 1983, armed guards came to his school seeking him and allegedly said they were there because he opposed the government and Islamic revolution; he fled Iran in May 1983 to France.
- Sadeghi lived in France for several years without seeking asylum there, then came to the United States.
- Witnesses testified Sadeghi appeared on a list of persons wanted by Iranian authorities for activities against the regime, including advocating overthrow of the government.
- The immigration judge found Sadeghi’s fear genuine but denied relief for failure to show the feared harm was “on account of” a protected ground; the BIA affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that Sadeghi failed to prove Iranian authorities sought him for persecution on account of political opinion or religion, rather than for legitimate criminal prosecution.
2. Whether Sadeghi met the higher standard for withholding of deportation by showing it was more likely than not that his life or freedom would be threatened on account of a protected ground.
3. Whether the record compelled reversal under the substantial-evidence standard governing review of BIA factual determinations.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review and affirmed the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of deportation.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Sadeghi did not carry his burden to show the government’s interest in him was persecutory, not prosecutorial.
- Because Sadeghi failed to establish statutory eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to satisfy the more demanding withholding standard.

## Legal Principles

- Asylum requires showing statutory “refugee” status: past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution “on account of” race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; discretionary relief is considered only after eligibility is shown.
- The applicant bears the burden to prove the feared harm is persecution tied to a protected ground; punishment for violating generally applicable laws, without discriminatory or pretextual motive, is treated as prosecution rather than persecution.
- Appellate review of the BIA’s factual findings is deferential; the court must uphold the BIA unless the evidence compels the opposite conclusion.
- Withholding of deportation requires a “clear probability” (more likely than not) of persecution on account of a protected ground, a stricter standard than asylum.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the BIA’s determination that the record did not compel a finding that Iranian authorities sought Sadeghi to persecute him for political opinion or religion rather than to prosecute suspected offenses against the state, defeating eligibility for asylum and, a fortiori, withholding of deportation.


Sadeghi v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 40 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 1994)