CHICAS

Interim Decision #2970




                           MA 11.1•11 OF CHICAS

                        In Deportation Proceedings

                                 A-20944784

                     Decided by Board June .2.9, 1984

  A Notice of Appeal (Form I-290A) and fee waiver request accompanied, by an unworn declaration made in accordance with 

 (1982) will be accepted as properly filed if it otherwise
comports with the requirements of 

 (1984).
CHARGE:
 Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(aX2) [

(aX2)]—Entered without inspection
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:                       ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
 Paula D. Pearlman, Esquire                     Ira L. Frank
  Imperial Valley Immigration Project           General Attorney
  449 Broadway
  El Centro, California 92243

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Dunne, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members


  The respondent appeals from a decision of an immigration judge
dated March 20, 1984, finding him deportable under section
241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

(a)(2) (1982), for entry into the United States without inspection. The immigration judge also denied the respondent's applications for asylum and withholding of deportation under sections 208
and 248(h) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.           99 1158 and 1253(h) (1982). The
appeal will be dismissed.
  On appeal, the respondent has requested a waiver of the filing
fee pursuant to 

(b) (1984). Counsel for the Immigration
and Naturalization Service has objected to the "Affidavit to Prosecute Appeal in Forma Pauperis" filed by the respondent, arguing
that it is not properly executed. See Matter of Alejandro, 

 (BIA 1984). Rather than submitting a sworn affidavit, the
respondent filed an unsworn declaration which states that it is executed in accordance with the requirements of 

                                        114
                                                      Interim Decision #2970

(1982). The declaration, which was signed by the respondent, reads:
"I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed on March 30, 1984. This Unsworn Declaration
pursuant to 

." One who subscribes to a statement
pursuant to the cited section is subject to the perjury penalties of

 (1982). We find that an unsworn statement personally executed by an alien that is in conformity with the requirements of 

 (1982) is in compliance with the affidavit
requirement of 

 (1984). Accordingly, we supplement
our ruling in Matter of Alejandro, supra, to provide that a Notice
of Appeal (Form I 290A) accompanied by a declaration made in ac-
                     -


cordance with 

 (1982) will be accepted as properly
filed, if it otherwise comports with the requirements of 

 (1982). As the declaration in the present case meets those requirements, we find that it is properly filed and we authorize the
prosecution of this appeal without fee.
  The respondent is a 33-year-old male native and citizen of El Salvador. At the deportation hearing held on. February 6, February 9,
and March 20, 1984, the respondent conceded deportability under
section 241(a)(2) for entry without inspection. We find that deportability has been established by clear, unequivocal, and convincing
evidence as required by Woodby v. INS, 

 (1966), and 

(a) (1984). The only issue on appeal is the denial of
the respondent's applications for withholding of deportation and
asylum.
   In order to qualify for withholding of deportation the alien must
show that his life or freedom would be threatened in the country of
deportation on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Section
243(h)(1) of the Act.
  In order to qualify for asylum under the Refugee Act of 1980,

 Stat. 102, an applicant must establish that
he is a "refugee" within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A) of the
Act, S U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (1982). That section defines a refugee
as
 any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case
 of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person
 last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable
 or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because
 of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
 nationality. membership in a particular social group, or political opinioii.

  The respondent bears the burden of proof in asylum or section
243(h) relief applications to establish by objective evidence either
that he has a well-founded fear of persecution or that his life or

                                       115
Interim Decision #2970

freedom will be threatened on account of one of the five grounds of
persecution enumerated in the above section 101(a)(42)(A.) and in
section 243(h)(1). See 

 (1984); INS v. Stevie, 

 (1984); Haitian Refugee Center v. Smith, 

 (5th Cir.
1982); Fleurinor v.. INS, 

 (5th Cir. 1978); Matter of
Exilus, 

 (KA 1982).
  The respondent submitted in support of his application a copy of
an Amnesty International Report for 1982, a copy of "Critique:
Review of the Department of State's Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices for 1982" by Americas Watch, several newspaper
reports for 1982 - 83 concerning the violence in El Salvador, and
part of a report called "Salvadorans in the United .States" by the
National Immigration and Alien Rights Project, including Appendix ILI.
  The respondent testified that his only relatives in El Salvador
are a half-sister and a great aunt. He was brought up by a National Guard officer who befriended him. From 1963 to 1970 he lived in
and around the offices of the National Guard. In 1969 he joined the
National Guard for a year.
  The respondent has admitted to a series of illegal entries into the
United States in search of work. As best the respondent could remember, he first entered the United States in September 1972; he
remained for about 10 months before he was discovered by the
Service and granted administrative voluntary departure. He reentered in 1973 and remained for about 10 months. He left again
under administrative voluntary departure. The respondent came
back into the United States in 1975 but voluntarily visited Mexico
for 3 months before returning to the United States at the end of
1976. He returned on his own to El Salvador with the money he
had saved by working in the United States in July 1982, but he had
no identification papers. For several weeks, he attempted without
success to obtain proper identification. In August 1982, he went to
his hometown to obtain a birth certificate. This village is reportedly in a disputed area partially controlled at times by the guerrillas.
He was able to locate his birth certificate, but he was noticed and
stopped by the local civil defense. The respondent was not able to
identify himself satisfactorily to the guards because the National
Guardsman he claimed to know refused to identify the respondent
by name when contacted by his captors. He alleges he was turned
over to the army and imprisoned and interrogated for 8 days. The
respondent claims that he was beaten and threatened with death
during this time. Finally, the soldiers checked with the airport in
San. Salvador and discovered that the respondent had indeed re-
                                 116
                                             Interim Decision #2970

cently arrived from the United States as he claimed. They then released him.
   Shortly thereafter, the respondent traveled to Costa Rica, to
Nicaragua, and back to El Salvador. In January 1983, he visited
Honduras in search of work but was unable to find any. He returned to El Salvador again, but he left for the United States after
a few days. He entered the United States in February 1983.
   He was discovered again by the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. This time he was deported in September 1983, after a hearing at which he appeared pro se. The respondent had applied for
asylum before the immigration judge but withdrew the application.
After his return to El Salvador, he left again in 5 days. He spent
some time in Mexico and entered the United States illegally on December 13, 1983. He admits to having used at least two false names
in the United States and that he served 90 days in jail for illegal
entry in July 1975_
   The respondent claims that he would be persecuted by the guerrillas in El Salvador. He fears that because of his knowledge of
arms and of the National Guard they will try to force him to join
them. He also fears that because he has been out of the country
and is not known in El Salvador, he will be arrested and mistreated upon his return, as he was in August 1982.
  In regard to his application for withholding of deportation, we
find that the respondent has not shown by a clear probability that
his life or freedom will be threatened in El Salvador on account of
his race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a
particular social group. In addition, regardless of whether his
asylum claim is assessed in terms of demonstrating a "clear probability," a "good reason," a "reasonable possibility," or a "realistic
likelihood" of persecution, he has not met his burden of proof
under any standard so as to qualify him for asylum_ See INS v.
Stevie, supra.
  The respondent's application and his testimony indicate that he
has never been threatened by the guerrillas. His fear that they
would attempt to force him to join them is sheer speculation and
cannot support an application for asylum or withholding of deportation. See Koshani v. INS, 

 (7th Cir. 1977).
  The respondent's fear of persecution by the government is based
primarily on the generally high level of violence endemic to El Salvador at the present time and on the one incident which occurred
in August 1982. In order to qualify for asylum or withholding of
deportation the respondent must show that he would be singled out
from the general population for persecution. See Fleurinor v. INS,
supra; Cheng KciE Fu v. INS, 286 11 .2d 750 (2d Cir. 1967), cert.

                                 117
Interim Decision # 2970

denied, 390 'U.S. 1003 (1968). We find that the incident which occurred in the respondent's hometown does not indicate that he will
be singled out for persecution if he returns to El Salvador. Although the respondent may have been mistreated, he explained his
arrest as the result of being a stranger in a very small town which
is frequently threatened by guerrillas. According to the respondent,
when the government soldiers found out who he was and that he
had been in the United States, he was released. He cannot now
maintain that he is in danger because he is returning from the
United States. Moreover, the respondent's application indicates
that at present he has a birth certificate and an identity document
(cedula). Therefore, he will not need to expose himself to the dangers of the embattled rural areas of El Salvador again in order to
obtain documentation. Neither the inability of the respondent to
find work in Central America nor the fear of the generalized violence in the area establishes the particularized threat of persecution required under the statute. See Chavez v. INS, 

(9th Cir. 1984); Martinez Romero v. INS, 

 (9th Cir.
                          -


1982). Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
  ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.




                                118