United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1829 ___________________________ Awil Abdi Mohamed Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States Respondents ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: April 15, 2021 Filed: August 13, 2021 ____________ Before KELLY, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ KOBES, Circuit Judge. Awil Mohamed, a Somalian national, committed several felonies and was placed in removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge concluded that he would more likely than not be tortured in Somalia, but the Board of Immigration Appeals disagreed and ordered him removed. Mohamed says the BIA applied the wrong legal standard and improperly found new facts. We deny his petition for review. I. Awil Mohamed, a Somalian national who entered the United States in 2001, committed several felonies and was placed in removal proceedings in 2016. Mohamed introduced evidence that al-Shabaab, an Islamic militant group that controls large parts of Somalia, attacks people with ties to foreign governments and those who do not conform to its beliefs. Mohamed said he would more likely than not be tortured if he were returned to Somalia because his brother-in-law worked for the United States Navy. He also reported that his brothers had been kidnapped and beaten in Somalia by al-Shabaab members for using cell phones, and that his brother- in-law’s grandfather was abducted because he had connections to the United States. The Immigration Judge found that it was more likely than not that Mohamed would be tortured if he were removed to Somalia. The IJ also concluded that the Somalian government would acquiesce in the torture because the government has been infiltrated by al-Shabaab members and because Mohamed is a member of a minority clan in Somalia, is westernized, and uses drugs and alcohol. The BIA reversed the IJ and ordered Mohamed’s removal, finding that the IJ’s factual conclusions were clearly erroneous. The BIA concluded that the IJ’s reasoning was based on a hypothetical “chain of occurrences” instead of a plausible view of the facts and evidence in the record. Add. 10 (citation omitted). The BIA rejected the IJ’s conclusions about the likelihood of torture and about government acquiescence. Mohamed appeals, raising two issues: (1) whether the BIA applied the wrong legal standard; and (2) whether the BIA failed to address relevant evidence and impermissibly engaged in its own factfinding. -2- II. We review the BIA’s conclusions of law de novo. Doe v. Holder, 651 F.3d 824, 829 (8th Cir. 2011). “The BIA may review [the IJ’s] factual findings, including predictive findings of future events, only for clear error.” Uzodinma v. Barr, 951 F.3d 960, 965 (8th Cir. 2020). “[T]he Board must adequately explain why it rejected the IJ’s finding and identify reasons grounded in the record that are sufficient to satisfy a reasonable mind that there was clear error.” Omar v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1061, 1064 (8th Cir. 2020). The BIA may not perform independent factfinding, cannot reweigh the evidence, and can …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals