NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HASSAN AL-HILLO, No. 20-70327 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-054-075 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order from the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 8, 2021** Seattle, Washington Before: GILMAN,*** GOULD, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Hassan Al-Hillo is a native and citizen of Iraq. He seeks review of the January 8, 2020 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to dismiss his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his motion to reopen with regard to his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). To reopen proceedings, Al-Hillo was required to produce evidence that would establish prima facie eligibility for protection under the CAT—that is, evidence that would establish a “reasonable likelihood” that he will be able to show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Iraq. Kaur v. Garland, No. 18-72786, 2021 WL 2521610, at *10 (9th Cir. June 21, 2021). We generally review the denial of a motion to reopen under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). 1. Al-Hillo’s CAT claim relies in part on an affidavit submitted by Daniel W. Smith, a researcher specializing in Iraq who has lived there since 2007. Smith prepared the affidavit in support of the plaintiffs in Hamama v. Adducci, 912 F.3d 869 (6th Cir. 2018), a class-action lawsuit filed by Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal. He opined that the deportees faced an increased risk of torture from Iraq’s immigration officials because the officials would want to uncover the nature of the deportees’ crimes as reported by the American news media. The BIA acknowledged this evidence, finding that “the record reflects individuals removed from the United States preceded or accompanied by media coverage of the individual’s conviction for major crimes, including homicide, rape and kidnaping, . . . are at an increased risk for coercive interrogation and torture.” But because Al-Hillo had been convicted of only minor crimes, the BIA concluded 2 that Al-Hillo had failed to show “that he exhibits any characteristics that would place him at a higher risk for harm.” This conclusion, however, rests on a mischaracterization of the evidence. Smith opined that deportees to Iraq face an increased risk of torture simply based on the presumption that they had committed serious crimes. As stated in Smith’s affidavit, there is a presumption that deportees have been convicted of major crimes, including crimes specifically …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals