Mohammed Yusuf v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOHAMMED ABDI YUSUF, No. 15-70423 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-232-444 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 12, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and QUIST,** District Judge. Mohammed Abdi Yusuf petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision finding him ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation. pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings. “Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding some of its own reasoning, we review both decisions.” Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). “We review petitions for review of the BIA’s determination that a petitioner does not qualify for asylum or withholding of removal under the highly deferential ‘substantial evidence’ standard.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). To establish an asylum claim based on past persecution, an asylum-seeker must provide evidence of “(1) an incident, or incidents, that rise to the level of persecution; (2) that is on account of one of the statutorily-protected grounds; and (3) is committed by the government or forces the government is either unable or unwilling to control.” Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 802–03 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000)). The BIA determined that Yusuf had not established past persecution on the basis of a protected ground. We disagree. Record evidence compels the conclusion that Yusuf suffered past persecution on the basis of his political opinion.1 1 Because this case is not subject to the REAL ID Act, see Pub. L. No. 103-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), § 101(h)(2), Yusuf’s testimony, which the IJ found credible, “is sufficient to establish the facts testified without the need for any corroboration.” 2 First, the conduct to which Yusuf was subjected by the Geri sub-clan chief— that is, the bazooka attack on his home, which was intended to kill him and which did kill his mother and brother—undoubtedly rises to the level of persecution. Attempted murder constitutes persecution because “attempts to murder are a form of physical harm. We have determined that such assaults threatening life itself constitute persecution.” Lopez, 366 F.3d at 803; see also Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 504 (9th Cir. 2013).2 Second, the evidence compels the conclusion that the Geri chief’s persecution of Yusuf was on account of the political opinion Yusuf verbally expressed to the chief when he refused ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals