## Facts

- Masood Shirazi-Parsa (a native and citizen of Iran) and Georgina Shirazi-Parsa (a native and citizen of Mexico) met while Masood was a student in the United States.
- The couple moved to Iran in 1982, married, and lived there for several years.
- In 1985, Masood was drafted into the Iranian military.
- Georgina made multiple trips to the United States during the marriage, including a 1983 trip to give birth to their daughter and a 1985 trip around the time Masood was drafted.
- Georgina worked at the Argentine Embassy in Tehran and, through that work, had contacts related to Argentine personnel (including Argentine soldiers connected to the United Nations).
- Masood testified that while he served in the army, he was interrogated on a regular basis, including about Georgina’s embassy employment and related foreign contacts.
- In August 1988, Masood and Georgina attended a dinner at an army officer’s home; during the dinner, the officer’s wife made insulting remarks about Georgina’s Mormon religion.
- The next night, members of the Revolutionary Guard came to the couple’s home, seized Masood, beat him, and questioned him about Georgina’s religious beliefs, her embassy employment, and their foreign contacts.
- During the interrogation, the Revolutionary Guard accused Masood of being a “spy.”
- After these events, Georgina left Iran for Mexico and then entered the United States in January 1989 on a tourist visa.
- Masood remained in Iran until he received a summons from a prosecutor ordering him to appear; the summons did not identify any charges.
- Masood fled Iran through Turkey to Mexico and then entered the United States in January 1989 without inspection.
- Masood and Georgina applied for asylum and withholding of deportation; the INS initiated deportation proceedings.
- The immigration judge denied asylum and withholding, finding they had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion or religion, but granted voluntary departure.
- The BIA dismissed the appeal, reasoning the Iranian government was concerned Masood might be a spy and was not interested in Masood’s political views or Georgina’s religion.
- Masood and Georgina petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of the BIA’s final order.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that Masood and Georgina failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, including religion and imputed political opinion.
2. Whether the record compelled the conclusion that the Iranian authorities’ treatment of Masood and continuing interest in him were connected to protected grounds rather than a purely security-based investigation.
3. Whether the agency’s denial of withholding of deportation could stand given the court’s resolution of asylum eligibility.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the BIA’s denial of asylum and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the BIA’s view of the evidence as merely reflecting a “spy” concern was not supported by substantial evidence when the record was considered as a whole.
- The court directed the agency on remand to proceed consistent with the court’s determination that the petitioners had established asylum eligibility and to address related relief accordingly.

## Legal Principles

- An applicant is eligible for asylum by showing he or she is a “refugee,” meaning past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground such as religion or political opinion.
- A “well-founded fear” has both a subjective component (genuine fear) and an objective component (credible, specific evidence that a reasonable person in the applicant’s position would fear persecution).
- Political opinion for asylum purposes includes political opinion imputed to the applicant by the persecutor.
- Under substantial-evidence review, the BIA’s factual findings are upheld only if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record as a whole; reversal is required when the record compels the contrary conclusion.
- Physical abuse and detention in the course of targeted questioning, combined with continuing official interest (such as a prosecutor’s summons with no stated charge), can support a finding of persecution and an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
- When the asserted motive is framed as a security investigation, the agency must still assess whether the facts show that the applicant is being targeted because the authorities attribute disfavored religious or political beliefs to the applicant.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s characterization of the Iranian authorities’ actions as a neutral investigation into espionage: the beatings, detention, repeated interrogations, and questions about Georgina’s Mormon faith and embassy ties, followed by a prosecutor’s summons with no stated charge, compelled the conclusion that petitioners had shown asylum eligibility based on a well-founded fear of persecution tied to religion and imputed political opinion, requiring reversal and remand for further proceedings.


Shirazi-Parsa v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 14 F.3d 1424 (1994)