FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN TAMUFOR FON, No. 20-73166 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A203-679-900 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 7, 2021 * San Francisco, California Filed May 18, 2022 Before: Susan P. Graber and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges, and Jennifer Choe-Groves, ** Judge. * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** The Honorable Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 2 FON V. GARLAND Opinion by Judge Graber; Concurrence by Judge Graber; Concurrence by Judge Collins; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Choe-Groves SUMMARY *** Immigration Granting in part and denying in part Stephen Tamufor Fon’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanding, the panel held that: (1) the record compelled a finding of past persecution; (2) the agency’s flawed reasoning as to nexus precluded meaningful review of that determination; and (3) substantial evidence supported the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. While tending to the wounds of a separatist fighter at a local hospital, Cameroonian soldiers punched Fon, attacked him with a knife (requiring him to seek medical attention and leaving a three-inch scar), and threatened to kill him if they ever caught him treating separatists again. Although Fon did not return to his job at the hospital, he continued treating separatist fighters at his home. Cameroonian soldiers later went looking for Fon and ransacked his home. The panel held that the harm Fon suffered, including the physical injury, the specific death threats connected to the physical *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. FON V. GARLAND 3 harm, and evidence of the country’s political and societal turmoil, compelled the finding of past persecution. The agency concluded that Fon failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground for two reasons: (1) because he had not provided any declarations from coworkers or family members regarding what happened to him in Cameroon; and (2) because he had not testified as to what happened to a hospital coworker who helped Fon treat the wounded separatist. The panel held that the first reason was invalid because the immigration judge failed to give Fon advance notice of what additional corroborating evidence was required, and an opportunity to produce it, or to explain why it was not available. The panel wrote that the IJ’s second reason was vague, because it was not directly responsive to Fon’s argument that, due to the medical assistance he provided, Cameroonian soldiers perceived him as working with the opposition. The panel wrote that it also was not clear whether this reason rested on the flawed findings of fact concerning past persecution or whether this reason (like …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals