NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 2 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALI HUSSEIN ALI AL GBURI, AKA Al- No. 19-71189 Gburi Ali Hussein Ali, Agency No. A209-867-921 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 6, 2020 Portland, Oregon Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,** District Judge. Petitioner Ali Hussein Ali Al Gburi, a native and citizen of Iraq, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s determination that he “firmly resettled” in Brazil, and is therefore * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. ineligible for asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(2)(i)(B).1 As discussed below, we conclude that the BIA’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence, and remand for further proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). A finding of firm resettlement is a factual determination, reviewed for substantial evidence. Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 967 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).2 Under substantial evidence review, we uphold factual determinations that are “supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481(1992)). The government bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case that an offer of firm resettlement has been made. Maharaj, 450 F.3d at 973; Matter of A- G-G-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 486, 501 (BIA 2011). “[T]o make a prima facie showing that an offer of firm resettlement exists, the DHS should first secure and produce direct evidence of governmental documents indicating an alien’s ability to stay in a country indefinitely.” Matter of A-G-G-, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 501. “If direct evidence of an offer of firm resettlement is unavailable, indirect evidence may be 1 The BIA did find that Petitioner suffered past persecution, and remanded to the IJ to reconsider Petitioner’s claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. On remand, the IJ granted Petitioner withholding of removal, but did not revisit the question of eligibility for asylum. 2 The government does not discuss our controlling decision in Maharaj. 2 used,” id. at 502, but only if the government shows that “direct evidence is unobtainable.” Maharaj, 450 F.3d at 976. Here, the government did not introduce direct evidence of an offer of firm resettlement or contend, let alone show, that direct evidence is unavailable or unobtainable.3 In such circumstances, we have concluded that the government fails to carry its burden, and that the resettlement bar does not apply. See, e.g., Mengstu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that the government …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals