Case ID: f-appx_512/html/0696-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohamed KAMARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72403.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    Filed March 20, 2013.
    Mohamed Kamara, Bronx, NY, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew B. Insenga, Trial, OIL, Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mohamed Kamara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 988, 937 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the government rebutted the presumption that Kamara has a well-founded fear of persecution if he is returned to Sierra Leone. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285-87 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence of fundamental changes in Sierra Leone rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Kamara failed to establish eligibility for humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(iii)(A) based on the severity of past persecution. See Vongsakdy v. INS, 171 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir.1999) (humanitarian relief based on severity of past harm is reserved for cases of “atrocious” persecution). However, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s finding that Kamara failed to establish “that there is a reasonable possibility that [he] ... may suffer other serious harm upon removal” to Sierra Leone. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(iii)(B). We remand to the BIA to consider whether to grant Kamara humanitarian relief as a matter of discretion.

Finally, since the government rebutted the well-founded fear of future persecution, Kamara’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1288.

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.