CA1: Traveling Copt not that oppressed

Abdel Malek v. Mukasey, No. 07-1851 affirms the asylum denial of an Coptic Egyptian.  The facts (which the IJ found credible) show how screwed up people are in other countries.  People go around threatening each other and offering each other money to convert to another religion.  The police (but maybe just someone involved in a family squabble) ended up beating him.  Despite all this, he appears to have carried on a business and traveled.  The IJ said it wasn’t persecution because he could have relocated to another city.  And the First says that this is supported by substantial evidence.

The First says it is “troubled” by “the IJ's failure to discuss the substantial documentary evidence regarding conditions in Egypt, which Malek claims provides an objective basis for his fear of future persecution. Coptic Christians clearly face considerable unpleasantness stemming from their religious beliefs.”  However, the First decides to back the IJ and says that although the IJ didn’t do that good a job, the petitioner brought it on by relying on theory that didn’t neatly lend itself to the evidence in those documents.