Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Camille Chammas v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Citations: 45 F.3d 435; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 40271; 1994 WL 712474Docket: 93-70903
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 15, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Camille Chammas appealed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his asylum application and withholding of deportation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the BIA's decision, noting that Chammas alleged persecution by Syrian forces in Lebanon due to his membership in the Liberal Party of the Christian Forces. However, the BIA found insufficient evidence that Chammas was specifically targeted for persecution based on his religion, as being a victim of civil strife does not qualify for asylum. Chammas failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution as required under U.S. immigration law. Additionally, Chammas contended that his felony conviction for cocaine sale did not constitute a "particularly serious crime" under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)(2)(B), which would render him ineligible for withholding of deportation. The court reiterated that the BIA's interpretation of drug offenses as particularly serious is consistent and entitled to deference, citing previous cases that support this stance. Chammas' argument of entrapment related to his conviction was deemed irrelevant, as the validity of a criminal conviction cannot be challenged in deportation proceedings. Hence, Chammas did not meet the burden for eligibility for either asylum or withholding of deportation. The petition for review is denied, with the panel unanimously determining that the case does not require oral argument, in accordance with Federal Rules and Ninth Circuit regulations. The decision is not meant for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit, except under specific rules. The case involves Chammas, who claimed persecution by Syrian forces; however, evidence indicates that incidents he described occurred at random checkpoints, undermining his assertion of being specifically targeted. Additionally, Chammas’ Christian relatives in Lebanon did not experience harassment, and he voluntarily returned to Lebanon in 1986, contradicting his fear of persecution. As Chammas is deemed ineligible for asylum, the panel does not address his argument regarding the Immigration Judge's discretion concerning his criminal conviction. Recent amendments to Section 1253 classify narcotics trafficking offenses as particularly serious for deportation purposes but do not apply to this case since the deportation proceedings began before the effective date of the amendments.