United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2743 ___________________________ Abdirahman Ali Moallin Petitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: October 22, 2020 Filed: November 23, 2020 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ GRUENDER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Abdirahman Ali Moallin asked the Immigration Judge (the “IJ”) and then the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) to defer his removal to Somalia under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”). For the following reasons, we deny Moallin’s petition for review of the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions denying relief. Moallin is a Somali native who entered the United States as a refugee in 1995 and obtained permanent resident status in 1996. Between 2000 and 2004, Moallin racked up seven criminal convictions. Accordingly, the United States Department of Homeland Security sought Moallin’s removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii). In 2004, the IJ ordered Moallin removed to Somalia. In 2017, the IJ granted Moallin’s motion to reopen his proceedings. Moallin then asked the IJ to defer his removal under the CAT, arguing he was likely to suffer torture if returned to Somalia. The IJ denied Moallin’s request, and the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. Moallin asks us to review those decisions. 1 Where, as here, the BIA issues a separate opinion, rather than summarily affirming the IJ’s decision, we review the BIA’s decision as the final agency action. See Alzawed v. Barr, 970 F.3d 997, 1000 (8th Cir. 2020). To the extent the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning, as here, we review the IJ’s decision too. See id. We review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence review is highly deferential, and we will unsettle factual findings only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Lasu v. Barr, 970 F.3d 960, 964 (8th Cir. 2020). The CAT prohibits the Government from removing an alien to a country where he is more likely than not to be tortured. Doe v. Holder, 651 F.3d 824, 828 (8th Cir. 2011). “Torture” is defined as certain acts that cause “severe pain or suffering . . . inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). In considering the likelihood of torture, the IJ and BIA must consider “the aggregate risk of torture from all sources.” Abdi Omar v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1061, 1065 (8th Cir. 2020). 1 Initially, the Government argued that we lacked jurisdiction to consider Moallin’s petition. But, after Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. ---, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1688 (2020), the Government now concedes we have jurisdiction. See generally Lasu v. Barr, 970 F.3d 960, 964 (8th Cir. 2020). -2- Moallin argues that the IJ and BIA failed to consider his aggregate risk of torture ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals