In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20‐3215 ERIC NYANDWI, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ____________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A094‐731‐778 ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 17, 2021 — DECIDED OCTOBER 8, 2021 ____________________ Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges. KIRSCH, Circuit Judge. Eric Nyandwi, facing removal from the United States because of multiple felony convictions, ap‐ plied for a deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. He claimed that he faced a substantial risk of torture if returned to the country of Burundi, of which he is a citizen. Both an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration 2 No. 20‐3215 Appeals found no such substantial risk and so denied his ap‐ plication. In this petition for review, Nyandwi asks us to re‐ mand the case, arguing that the immigration judge and the Board committed various legal errors when they denied his application. We disagree, find no error, and therefore deny the petition. I Nyandwi, a citizen of Burundi and a native of Tanzania, came to the United States as a refugee on August 9, 2006 and became a lawful permanent resident. After Nyandwi was convicted of robbery in the second degree, receiving a stolen firearm, and illegal possession of a controlled substance, the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceed‐ ings against him under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B)(i). Nyandwi conceded his removability as an aggravated felon but filed an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Re‐ moval, seeking a deferral under the Convention Against Tor‐ ture (CAT). At a removal hearing before an immigration judge (IJ), Nyandwi submitted evidence of country conditions in Burundi and testified that he was an ethnic Twa whose par‐ ents fled Burundi in 1996 because of a civil war that resulted in the death of Twas, including his family members. Nyandwi told the IJ that he feared being removed to Burundi because he was a returning Twa refugee, was unable to speak the na‐ tive language, had no proof of political allegiance to the gov‐ erning regime, and was unable to pay compulsory election contributions. The IJ denied Nyandwi’s claim for deferral under CAT, concluding that “Respondent has not established a substan‐ tial risk that he will be targeted for torture if he returns to Bu‐ rundi” because he did not claim that anyone in Burundi had No. 20‐3215 3 a current intent to torture him specifically. Rather, his fears relied on what the IJ called a hypothetical chain of events: that he would be detained by authorities upon return to Burundi because he was a refugee, viewed as an oppositionist to the ruling regime because he was a Twa and financially incapable of paying compulsory election contributions, and therefore singled out for torture. The IJ faulted Nyandwi for failing to show that he would be unable to make money or make elec‐ tion contributions in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals