United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2918 ___________________________ Mohamud Mohamed Hassan Petitioner v. Jeffrey A. Rosen, Acting Attorney General of United States Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: October 22, 2020 Filed: January 15, 2021 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ GRUENDER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Mohamud Mohamed Hassan asked an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and then the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to defer his removal to Somalia under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the following reasons, we deny Hassan’s petition for review of the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions denying relief. Hassan, a Somali native, entered the United States in 2001 under a false passport. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security sought Hassan’s removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A). The IJ ordered Hassan removed to Somalia, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, and we summarily denied Hassan’s petition for review. Hassan v. Holder, 446 F. App’x 822, 823 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Hassan then moved to reopen his case, which the BIA granted, remanding the case to the IJ. On remand, Hassan asked the IJ to defer his removal under the CAT, arguing that he was likely to be tortured if removed to Somalia. The IJ denied Hassan’s request, and the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. Hassan petitions us to review those decisions. 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, whether physical or mental . . . when such pain or suffering is 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). -2- Before the IJ and BIA, Hassan argued that the Somali government would torture him for belonging to a minority clan and that Al-Shabaab (a terrorist organization) would torture him for minority-clan membership, being “westernized,” and having been on a failed repatriation flight. The IJ ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals