## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2899 S AAD S AR HANa nd S ARA I S S A M OHAMA D D ISI, P etitio ners , v.
E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe titions fo r Review from an O rde r o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

. No s. A076 766 381, A076 766 390

A RG UE D A PRI L 13, 2011

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 2, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, W OO D , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , Cir cu i tJudg e . T hi s pet i ti o n pr es en ts the questi on wh ethera w om an w h o w i l l f al l vi cti m to an “h on or killin g” atth e h a n d s o f a fam ily m em b er is enti tl ed to r el i efei therunder the Conventi on Agai nst To r tu r e ( CA T) o r unde r the pr o ce du re kno wn as “ wi th

hol ding ofr em ova l

. ” F orthe l att er, she m ust pro ve2 N o. 10

- 2899 tha ts he i s a me mbe r o fa “par t i c ul a r s o c i a l g r o up ” w i thi n the m eani ng o fthe I m m i gr ati on a nd N ational i ty Act ( I N A), 8 U. S

. C. § 1 23 1(b) ( 3)
. W e ho l d tha t sh e ha s su cc es sful l y e st ab l i sh ed th atshe i s. I n a ddi ti o n, f o r pur poses o fb o ththe CAT an d wi thho l di ng, we fi nd th at th e d ec isio n of th e B oa rd o fIm m igr at ion A p p ea ls ( the Boa rd) fi nd i ng tha t s he has not shown a cl earpro babil ity that sh e w il l be kil led on accou nt o f h er m em bersh ip in t h at so c ial gr ou p if sh e is ret u rn ed to Jo r d an is not supp or ted bysubst anti alev i den c e. The Boar d fa i l ed to consi der s i gni fi cant e vi dence that s he pre sente d that su p p or ts a fin d i n g t h at th e Jo rd an ian gov er n m en t is curr entl y unable o r unw i l l i ng to pro tecther

. The r el i ef requ ested by her h us ban d , w h o i s th e othe r pet iti one r, is a n iss u e t h at th e B oa rd o fI m m i gr at ion A p p ea ls m u st rec on sid er in t h e firs t in st an c e. W e g r a n t th e p et iti ons for r ev i ew and re m and to the Boa rd f orfurther pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

I Saad and Sara Sarhan , a m arried cou p le w ho are ci ti ze ns o fJord an, r ec ei ve d v i si to r v i sa s an d c ame t o the U nited Sta tes w ith th eir tw o children i n th e 1990s
. ( Sara al so goe s by Sara I ssa M oham ad Disi ; we re ferto heras D isi in th e in te re st of kee p in g th e pa rt ies st ra igh t.) Sh or tly af te r t h e y a r r i v e d , D i s i g a v e b i r th t o a th i r d c h i l d

. The Sarhans’ new daughterhad ki dn ey probl em s, and so th e f ami l y s t a y e d i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s b e y o n d th e e xp ira ti on o fthe parents ’ vi sas to ensur e that the ch ild r ec ei ve d th e ca r e sh e ne ede d. The y se tt l ed i n Chi ca g o , a nd ev en tu al l y the c o upl e ha d t wo mor e ch i l dr en .N o. 10

- 2899 3 N uha S arha n i s S arha n a nd Di si ’ s si st er - i n- l aw ( sh e i s m ar ri ed to Sarhan’s bro ther )
. There i s a hist or y of an i m o si tyb etwee n Nuh a an d he r i n- l aws . Di sii s co nvi nced that i t was N uha w ho t ri ggere d the curr ent pr oceedi ngs b y r eve al i ng to the i m m i gr ati on o ffi ci al s that Disiand Sa rhan were i n the U ni ted S tat es i lleg all y. Befo re N u ha di d that, however, she sta rt ed a r um or th at D isih ad com m itted ad ultery. N uh a told th is story to he r mothe r, who t o o kthe ne ws t o Am m an, J o r dan, an d th er e in for m ed D i s i’s fa m ily

— includ ing D isi ’s bro ther, Besem Dis i

— th atDi siha d b ee n un f ai th fula nd had dishono re d the f am i l y. Dis i fi rs t hea rd abo ut thes e f al se accusat i ons i n 200 3, wh en S ar han’s pare nts v i si ted th e U nited States an d told he r that th ese ru m ors w ere sw i rl i ng i n J or dan. N ei ther Sarhan nor the re st of h is f am i l y b el i eve thatany thi ng N uha has s ai d i s t rue, b u tD i s i ’ s b r o th e r B e s e m i s co n v i n c e d th a tD i s i h a s c o mm i tt ed adul te r y a nd has rui ne d the f ami l y ’ s r epu ta ti o n. Sa rh an’ s par ents tol d D i siduri ng the i r vi si t that Besem pl anned to ki l l herwh en she ret u rn ed to J or dan in ord er to res to re th e fa m ily’s h on or . “H onorki l l i ngs” ( an o xym or on if w e eve r hear d one) happ en “when a f am i l y feel s that thei r fem al e r el ative h as ta rn ish ed th eir rep u ta tio n by w h a t t h ey loos ely te r m ‘ i m m o r al be ha vi o r . ’ The per so n ch o se n by th e fam ily to ca rry ou t t h e m u rd er (u su all y m a l e: a b r o the r, f a the r, c o us i n, p a t e r na l u nc l e o r h us b a nd ) br ut al l y e nds the i r femal e r el at i ve ’ s l i fe t o c l ea ns e th e fam ily o ft h e ‘s h am e’ s h e b ro u gh t u p on th em .” R ANA H US S EI NI, M URDERI N THE N AME OF H O NO UR xi ( 2009 )
. S ee gener al l y Is l am i c ‘H o nor ’Ki l l i ngs i n Jor dan ,4 N o. 10

- 2899 ht tp : //w w w . you tu be.com /w atch? v=iVRv Q tG T v-s ( CN N r ep o r ta v a i l a b l e o n Y o u T u b e )
. S u c h k i l l i n g s a r e c o mm o n p lac e a ro u n d th e w or ld an d ty p ica lly h ap p en in countr i es w here the m or alco de tig h tly re str i cts the b ehavi oro fwom en; go vern m ent o ffer s l i ttl e pr ote cti on f orthe vi cti m s; and ki llers re cei ve l i ght puni shm ent, ifcha rges are not drop p ed altogethe r. Besem has l ong been obs ess ed w i th fa m ily honor, as defi ne d b y r el ig i o us a nd s o ci alno r m s i n J o r dan, a nd he cannot be deter re d fro m m urdering hi s si ste r i n r esponse to the r um or s N uha sta rt ed. Besem ’ s per si ste nce i s per pl ex i ngg i ve n the e vi den ce tha t N uha ha s m an uf actur ed scandal s s i m i l arto t h is one i n the past. B efo re sul l yi ng Di si ’ s nam e, N uha once accused Sarhan’s m othe r ( her own m othe r- i n-l aw ) o fi nfi d el i ty; thi s s l ur ca us e d S a r ha n’ s f ather to at tem pt an ho no r k i l l i nga g ains t hi s wi fe. Thankful l y, S arha n a nd hi s br o th er s i nt er ve ne d t o s av e th ei r mo th er’s l i fe, a nd th e fami l y l at erdi sc o ve r ed th atNuha ha d m ade the w h ole thi ng up. N onethel ess , Besem i s r eso l ute, bec ause he appare ntl y b el i eve s that the r um or s a l one have harm ed hi s r eputati on in the c om m unity e nough to w ar ra n t k i l l i ng Di si

— th e t ru th n o lon ge r m at te rs . In 2006 , Besem vi si ted D isi i n Chicag o and tol d her that he pl an ne d to m ur der he r when sh e r etur ne d to Jordan. I n the proce edi ngs in the I m m igrati on Court, Dis i tes ti fi ed that B esem sa i d, “[ W ] hen yo u com e ba ck to Jo r d an, I ’m goi ng to ki llyou. H ere [i n th e U nited States], Ic an ’ t do , b ec au se the r e i s a pen al tyf o r thi s, buti n J o r dan, nobody can do for a n ot h er ki l l i ng. ” S ar han and his f ather have cor ro bor ate d the s i ncer i ty ofBesem ’ s threa t.N o. 10

- 2899 5 The S ar hans appear ed i n I m m i gr atio n Court on J anuary17, 20 06, and co nceded that they were r em ovabl e be cause they had over sta yed the i r vi sas . They fi l ed appli cati ons f oras yl um and w ith hol ding of re m ova l and re quested r el i efun der the CA T base d o n B e s e m’ s d e a th thr e a t
. ( Mo r e f o r ma l l y, th e C AT is th e U nited N ations C onv en tion agains t Tortu re and Other Cruel, I nhum an o r Degra d in g Tr eat m ent o r Punishm ent, N ew Yor k, Decem b er10 , 19 84. S ee h tt p ://u n t r e a t y .u n .o r g / c o d / a v l /h a / c at c id tp /c at c id tp .h tm l. B y v i rtue of Pub. L. N o. 105- 277, 112 St at. 2681

- 821, i t is part ofU
. S. l aw . ) S ar h an and the Sarhans’ two chi l dren w ho are n ot U
. S. c iti zen s a re listed as ben efi ciaries on Disi’s appl i ca ti o n. Af te r he ar i ngtestim o ny tha t i nc l ude d the detai l s we have j ust reco unted, I m m i gr ati on J ud ge Zerbe ( the IJ ) deni ed al l r el i ef( except forvo l untarydepartur e, whi c h i s n o tr e l e v a n th e r e ) a n d o r d e r e d th e S a r h an s re m ove d to J or dan. The IJ deni ed the Sarhans’ appli cati on f or asy l um as unti m el y because i t had b een fi l ed m or e than a year after they arrived i n th e U nite d S t a tes. In th e IJ’ s vi ew , theyhad not shown change d ci rcum sta nces or a nyo the r a c c e pt a b l e r e a s o n f o r the de l a y . See 8 U. S

. C. § 1158( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) & ( D)
. Wi th r e s pe c tt o wi thh o l di ngo f re m ov al, th e IJ d en ied relie f for a n u m b er of re as on s: w h ile J ud ge Ze rb e f o un d tha tthe p e t i t i o ne r s h a d t e s t i fi ed cre dibl y about Besem ’ s pl ans t o ki l l Dis i, he c oncl ud ed that thi s was noteno ugh to dem ons trate thatBesem posed a conti nuing thre at to Disi ; he a l so rul ed that Di siwas no t a m embe r of a pa r ti cul ars o ci alg r o up a nd th a t, e v e n i f s he wa s , s he ha d no t s ho wn that Bese m in te n d ed to kill he r on ac c ou n t o f h er m em b er s h ip in6 N o. 10

- 2899 that gr oup. A fter re vi ew i ng evi dence about h onor killings in J or dan, the IJ drew the c oncl usi on that J or dan w oul d prote ct Di siev en i fBese m d i d pose a thr e a t
. F i na l l y, i fa l l o the r r e a s o ns t o de nyr e l i e ff a i l e d, th e IJ a dd ed that he sa w no re aso n that Disico uld not r el o ca te to a vo i d the thr ea t o nc e sh e ar r i ve d i n J o r dan

. The IJ deni ed re l i efunder the CA T fo r si m i l arr eas ons. The Bo ard a ffi r m ed i n a t wo- pag e o pi ni o n, a nd the Sarhans fi l ed these peti ti ons.

II The Sa rhans have f ocuse d on the Board ’s d en i alo f wi th h o l d i n go fr e mo v a l i n th e i r p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. A s th ey re cogni ze, we l ack j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew i ts concl usi on that thei r appli cati on f oras yl um was u n t i me l y a n d n o te x c u s e d b y e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u mst an c es . R e s t r epo v. Ho lder, 610 F.3d 962 , 964 (7th C ir. 2010 )
. A l though they have not m ade any po in ts par ti cul art o the CAT i n the b r i efb efo r e th i s co ur t, the Board ru led on the m er i ts ofthe CA T cl ai m , and the gov er nm ent has co nceded that b oth the withhol ding cl aim and the CA T cl ai m ar e be f or e thi s co urt. B ri eff or U ni ted S tat es a t 10 n. 4. Our di scussi on be l ow app l i es f or th e mo s tp a r t to bo t h th e o r i e s , b u tth e y d i ffe r i n s o me i m port ant r espect s, as we note. Befo re pro ceedi ng, i t i s hel pfulto cl ar i fy what d ec isio n w e a re r evi ew i ng and wh at sta nd ar ds apply. The part i es dispute w hetherw e s houl d rev i ew the Board’ s o pini on a l o ne o r the IJ ’ s de c i s i o n a s s up pl e men t e d b y the Bo a r d.N o. 10

- 2899 7 T h e g o v e r n me n ta r g u e s f o r the l a t t e r a p p r o a c h, a n d we agr ee w i th i ts posi ti on. The Boar d did not supp ly an op in ion ind ep en d en t o f th e IJ’s d ec isio nin t h is c as e, e . g. , Liu v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 30 7, 31 1 (7 th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ); no r d id it e x p re ss ly a d op t t h e IJ ’ s a n a lys is in its en tir et y, e . g. , Pop v . INS , 2 70 F
. 3d 52 7, 5 29 (7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. I ns te ad, the Board ag re ed w i th the IJ and supp l em ented hi s o pini on wi th a ddi t i o na l o b s e r v a t i o ns o fi t s o wn. Whe n thi s h a pp en s, w e review the IJ ’s d ecision w he rever th e B oard ha s no t su ppl an te d i t wi thi ts o wn r at i o na le; wher e th e B oa rd h as sp ok en , w e rev iew its op in ion
. M em a v. G o nz a les , 474 F. 3d 412, 41 6 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 7). The ag ency’ s f actual fi nd i ng s r e l a t e d t o the peti ti on e r s ’ c l a i ms mus tb e s up p or te d by su b st a n tia l ev id en c e. Feto v. G o nz a les , 43 3 F
. 3d 90 7, 9 10

- 11 (7th C i r . 2 00 6)
. W e r ev i ew i ts l eg alc o ncl usi ons deno vo , A hm ed v. A shcroft, 34 8 F
. 3d 611, 615 (7th Cir. 2003). Fi nal l y, o ur r evi ew i s co nstr ai ned by th e ag en cy ’ s r ea so ni ng : we m ay upho l d its conc l usion onl y o n a b asi s that was ar ti cul ate d by the ag ency its elf. M o a b v. G o nz a les , 500 F.3d 656 , 659 (7th C ir. 2007).

III A Wi th h o l d i n go fr e mo v a l i s ma n d a t o r y u n d e r th e I NA i fan a pp l i cant e stabl i shes that i t i s m or e like l y than not that she would be p er secuted i n the countr y o f re m ova l “be cause of[ her] r ace, relig i on, nati onal i ty, m em ber shi p i n a p ar ti cul arso ci algr oup, o r pol i ti cal opi ni on. ” 8 U
. S. C. § 1 231(b) ( 3) ; se e a l so Be ni t ez Ram os v.8 N o. 10

- 2899 H o l d er, 5 8 9 F
. 3 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 0

- 3 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. T he r e qu i re m ents f oro btaini ng r el i efunder the CA T ar e a l so str i ngent, but they differin so m e r espect s fro m tho se f o r wi thho l di ng . “ To o bt ain pr o te ct i o n underCAT, o ne m u st sh ow th at ‘it i s m or e li ke ly th an n ot th at o n e w o u ld be t or ture d i fr em ove d to the pr op os ed c ou ntryo fr em ova l

. ’ ” To ure v . H o l d er, 62 4 F
. 3d 422, 42 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( q u o t i n gfr o m R a sh ia h v. A shcroft, 38 8 F
. 3d 1126 , 11 31 ( 7th Cir

. 2004 ) )
. “Tor ture ” f orthes e purpose s i s defi ned as:
a nya c tb y wh i c h s e v e r e p a i n o r s uffe r i ng, wh ether phy si ca l orment al, i s i nt en ti o na l l y i nfl i ct ed o n a perso n f orsu c h purposes as obt ai ni ng fro m hi m o r he r ora thi r d pe r so n i nf o r m at i o n o r a c o nfes si o n, p un ishing h im or he r f or an act he or she or a third p e r s o n h a s c o mmi t t e d o r i s s u s p e c t e d o fh a v i n gc o mm itted , or intim idat ing or coercing him or he r or a thi rd per son, o r f orany re aso n base d on di scr i m i nati o n o f an y k i nd, when su ch pain o r su ffer i ng i s i nfl i ct ed byo r a t th e i ns ti g at i o n o fo r wi ththe c o ns en t or acqui esce nce of a pu bl i c offi ci al or othe r p er son ac tin g in an offic ial c ap ac ity
. 8 C. F. R. § 208. 18. U nl i ke the r em ed y of withhol ding of re m ova l, r elie f u nd erthe CA T i s no t co nd i ti oned on pr o o ftha t th e al i enha s be enpe r se cut ed be ca us e o fo ne o fthe fi v e g r o un ds l i s t e d in the I NA. Onthe o the r ha nd , the ne ed t o p ro ve “to rture, ” a s s o defined, se ts a hi gh ba r f o r r el i ef

. Re l i efun d erb o ththe CAT an d the wi th

hol ding provi si ons re quir es the a pp l i cant to p ro ve that i t i s “ m or e l i kel y than not” thatthe adver se conse quences wi l l o cc uri fs he i s r etur ne d t o the c o unt r y i n que st i o n.N o. 10

- 2899 9 Foc usi ng fi rs t o n w i thhol ding ofr em ova l, the IJ r ej ecte d Di si ’ s ar g um en t th at sh e was a m embe r o f a so ci al gr o up f o r pur po se s o fthe s ta tu te
. The Bo ar d a g r ee d wi ththe IJ
. D efend ed by the g ove rnm ent, the Board descr ibed Di si ’ s so ci alg r o up a s M us l i m women fals elyacc used of adul te r y . T his i s no t ac cur at e. As the pe ti ti o ne r s po i nt o uti n the i r b rief s, the t r uth o rf al si tyo fthe a cc us at i o ns ag ains t th e woman who i s ta r g et ed f o ra n h o no r k i l l i ng m a k e s n o di ffe r e nc e . No r n e e d a wo man ’ s t r a ns g r e s si on ris e t o the l eve l of adulte ry as the ter m i s und er sto od in the Uni t e d S t a t e s . S ee B LA CK ’ S L AW D ICTIO NA RY( 9th ed

. 2009) (defining ad ultery as “[v]olunt ary sex ua l intercour se between a m ar ri ed pers on a nd so m eone o ther than the per son’ s s po u se ”). I n J or dan, cause f oran honorki l l i ng m ay ar i se w here a w om an c om m i ts such a “ si n” as go i ng f ora w al k with a m an wh o i s no t her hu sba nd o r r el at i ve . The s o ci alg r o up tha t Di sia nd Sa rh an p ro p os e in c lu d es all Jord an ian w om en w h o, in ac co r dan ce wi th so ci ala nd r el i g i o us no r m s i n J o r dan, ar e a ccu sed o fbeing i m m or alcr i m i nal s a nd , as a conse que nc e, face the pr o spe cto fb eingk i l l ed wi th o uta ny prot ecti on fro m the J or danian gov er nm ent. W e ha ve a ckno wl edg ed th atthe t er m s “r ac e, r el i g i o n, nati onal i ty, ” “ parti cular soci algr oup, ” a nd “pol i ti cal opi ni on” ar e no t nec ess ar i l y s el f

- defini ng and, co nseq u en tl y , t h at th e B oa rd ’s u n d er st an d in g of t h em is enti tl ed to Che vron d efe re n c e . C hen v. Ho lder, 60 7 F
. 3d 5 1 1 , 5 1 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) ; 1 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ; s ee al so C hevron U

. S.A. v. N atural R es . D ef

. Co uncil, 46 7 U.S

. 83 7 (1984). O n ly offici al pron ou nc em en ts of the B oard are ent itl ed to this treatm e n t, h ow ever. I f th e B oard10 N o. 10

- 2899 has s poken thro ugh a no n-p re cedenti aldeci si on that d oe s not r el y o n bi nd i ng Boar d precedent, i ts i nter preta
ti on i s no t o ne thatr ecei ves C he vron d efe re n c e. Arob e l i dze v. H o lder, 20 11 W L 31324 59 at * 6 ( 7t h Cir

. J uly27, 20 11) ( e n b anc ). In ad d i t i on , Che vron does notapplyto f ac tu alfi ndi ng s; the y a r e r ev i ewe d i ns tea d unde r the “s u b st an tia l ev id en c e” st an d ar d

. V a ho ra v . Ho lder, 626 F. 3d 907, 91 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. U n d er the “subst anti al evi d e n c e ” stan d ard , w e w il l up hold the B oard ’s dete rm i na ti o n o nl y i f it is “ su ppo r te d b y r ea so nabl e, s ubs ta nti al, and prob ati ve evi dence on the r eco rd con sid er ed as a whole

. ” Id. , quoti ng R agh un a tha n v . Ho lder, 6 0 4 F. 3d 371, 376 (7th C ir. 2010). W e m ay overtu rn th e B oard ’s d ec isio n “o n ly if th e re c or d co m p els a c on tr ar y re su lt.” B rucaj v. A shcroft, 381 F.3d 602 , 606 (7th C ir. 2004). The Actdo es no t defi ne “ par ti cul ars o ci alg r ou p , ” “b ut th e B o ard has d efi ne d i t as a group w hos e m em bers sh ar e ‘ co m m o n c ha r ac te r i st i cs tha t m embe r s o fthe gr oup ei thercannotcha n ge , orsho uld notbe re quir ed to change bec ause such char acte ri sti cs a re fund am ental to thei r i nd i vi du ali denti ti es. ’ ” Gati m iv. Ho lder, 57 8 F
. 3d 611, 614 (7th Cir. 2009) ( G atim i I) ( quoti ng In r e Kasi nga , 2 1 I
. & N
. De c. 35 7, 3 65

- 66 ( BI A 19 96 ) , a nd c i ting In re A cost a , 19 I
. & N
. D ec. 211, 233 -3 4 (B IA 1985)). The Board has sugg es ted thata keychar acte ri sti c o f a “ p ar tic u lar so c ial gr ou p ” is its so c ial v isib ility

. E.g
. , In reS

- E- G- , 24 I. & N
. D ec . 57 9, 58 2-8 6 (B IA 2 0 0 8 ) . In thi s c a s e , the B oar d r e l i e d o n s o c i a l v i s ib i l i t y t o de c i de ag ain stD isi’s p r o p os ed gro u p . Th is c ou rtd ec id ed in G a tim i I, h ow ev er (aft er th e IJ ru led ) th at th e s oc ial v i s ibi l i ty c rit er i on “ m ake s no se nse, ” a nd we rej ecte d i t a sN o. 10

- 2899 11 i nconsi ste nt with the Bo ar d ’ s a nd o ur o w n past case s. 578 F.3d a t 615-16. “W om en w ho h ave n ot yet un d ergo n e fe m ale ge n ita l m u tila ti on in t rib es th at p ra c tic e it,” w e wrot e, “do not l oo k di ffer ent fro m anyo ne el se. ” Id. at 615. S o, to o, wh en i t co m es to w om en wh ose behav i or l e a ds the m t o b e threa t e ne d wi th ho no r k i l l i ng s : e xc e pt atthe m om en t when th eya r e ta l k i ngt o a s tr an g e m an, or expr e s s i nga ffe c t i o n i n a n “ i mpe r mi s s ib l e ” wa y, the y are ind isti ng uish able from all oth er w om e n b efore they ar e m urdere d by thei r f am i l i es. T he Boa rd also reason e d that the m em bers of Disi’ s propos ed gr oup have nothi ng i n com m on e xcept “a shar ed experi ence w ith o therm em ber s o fJ or danian so c iet y w h o h av e b ee n ta rg et e d for h on or killin gs .” T h is con clusion is bas ed on a m isap p li cation of th e B oard ’s l eg als ta nd ar d t o the f ac ts b efo r e i t. W e r ea l i ze tha t th e age ncy “has a l egi ti m ate i nter est i n re si sti ng effor ts to cl ass i fy peo ple wh o ar e t ar ge ts ofper secuti on a s m em b ers o fa parti cul arso ci algr oup w hen theyhave litt le or n ot h in g in co m m on be yo n d be in g t ar ge ts .” G atim i I, 5 78 F.3d at 61 6. T ha t is w hy peo p le w ho are perse cuted so l el y b ecause theyhave c oo perat ed w i th p oli ce or pe op le w ho are d eb t o r s t o th e sam e cred itor are n otco n sid er ed to be p ar t o f a d ef i n e d s o c ial gr ou p . Id. ( re fer ring to Sc a ta m buli v. Ho lder, 558 F.3d 53 (1st C ir. 20 09 ), Cast i l l o-Ari as v. U
. S. At t ’y Ge n. , 44 6 F
. 3d 1190 ( 11th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , a nd C ruz -Fu nez v. G o nz a les , 406 F. 3d 1187, 11 91- 9 2 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) )
. T h e s o c i a l g r o u p i n th i s c a s e , h o weve r, does n ot s u fferfro m thatfl aw . I t i s a functi on o f a pre - exi sti ng m or alco de i n J or danian s oci ety, j ust a s the dr ess co de f or“m odest” wom en thath elp ed to12 N o. 10

- 2899 defi ne a s o ci alg r o up i n Ya deg a r-Sa rg is v. IN S, 297 F. 3d 596 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )
. S o c i a l s t i g ma c a us e s the v i o l ence. S o c i e t y a s a w h o l e b r a n d s w o me n who fl o u ti t s n o r ms as outca sts , and i t del ega tes to f am i l y m em ber s the ta sk o fmetingo utthe a ppr o pr i at e punish m en t

— in th is case , de at h . T he Boa rd ’s f actu al find ing to the co nt rary i s no t su ppo r te d b y s ubs ta nt ial e vi den ce . ( To the e xt en t th at th is Bo a r d d e c isi on m ay ha ve ad d ed to the B oard ’s exi sti ng st andards, we note that it is not enti tl ed to Che vron defer en ce b ec au se it i s a no n- pr ec ede nt i alo pi nion . 8 C FR § 10 03 .1 ( g ) (2 01 1); B IA , Pr ac tic e M an u al, 1.4 (d ), 4.6(d ) (20 04 ). Arob e l i dze, 201 1 W L 31 32 45 9 a t *6 .) D isi ’s prop osed social grou p i s con sisten t w ith oth ers w e h av e fo u n d in a n alo go u s c irc u m s t a n c es . Sepul ve da v

. G o nz a les , 46 4 F
. 3d 770, 77 1- 72 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) , hol ds that for m er su b or d in at es of th e a tt or n ey ge n er al of C olo m b ia w ho h ad i nfo rm ati on about i nsurge nts pl agui ng tha t nati on a re m em ber s o fa soc i algro u p. That o pini on al so conta i ns a useful l i st ofo th er qual i fyi ng exam ple s, in c lu d in g “ th e e d u c at ed , l an d ow n in g c las s o f ca tt le f ar m er s t ar get ed by Col om bi an r ebel s; . . . pare nts o f Bu rm ese stud ent di ssi dents; and chi l dren wh o esca ped afterbeing ens lav ed fr om U gandan guer i l l as w ho had ensl aved them

. ” Id. ( ci tation s o m itt ed ). G atim i I recogn ized as a social grou p the form er m em bers of a vio len t c rim in al fa c tio n i n K en ya ca lled th e M u n gik i, 5 7 8 F
. 3 d a t6 1 5 ; a nd Ben i t ez Ram os con c lu ded thatf or m er gan g m em bers w ho face p ersecu tion after qu itti ng are m em ber s o fa parti cul arso ci al gr oup, 58 9 F
. 3d at 429- 30. W om en f ac in g h onorki l l i ngs in J or dan are no l ess co he s i v e tha n the s e g r o up s a nd no mor e a b l e t oN o. 10

- 2899 13 shed the sti gm ati zi ng chara c teri sti cs that r ender them vi cti m s. Consi der how si m i l ar w om en i n Disi ’ s pos i ti on ar e to the s o ci algr o ups r ec o g ni ze d i n A gb o r v. G o nz a les , 487 F. 3d 499, 50 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( w om en wh o fearthey w ill be v ict im s o f fem a l e g en ita l m u tila tio n ), In re Kasi nga , 21 I. & N
. D ec . 357 (B IA 19 96 ) (sa m e), Ya deg a rSa rgis, 29 7 F
. 3d at6 03 ( C hristia n wo m eni n I r anwho d o no t wi sh to adh er e to th e I sl ami c femal e dr es s cod e), Lin v. Ashcroft, 38 5 F
. 3d 748, 75 2 ( 7th Ci r. 2 004) ( Ch i nese wo menwh o f a c e f o r c e d s t er i l i za t i o n) , a nd B iX i a Qu v. H o lder, 61 8 F
. 3d 602, 60 7- 08 (6t h C i r. 20 10) ( w om en w h o a re sold or f orced i nt o m arriage and i nv olun tary se r vi tu de)

. W e co nc l ude tha t Di sii s a m embe r o fthe parti cul arso ci algr oup ofwom en in J or dan w ho have ( al l eg edl y ) fl o ut ed r epress i ve mor alno r m s, a nd thus w ho f ace a hi gh r i sk ofhonorki l l i ng. To the exte n t th at Dis i i s pro ceedi ng under the CA T, as w e m enti oned ear l i er, she does not need to sh ow that she b el onge d t o a p ar ti cul arso ci algr oup. Fo r that cl ai m , o ne c ans k i p do wn i m m ediately to pa r ts I I I
. C. a nd I V ofthi s o pini on; tho se sect ion s ad dress the i ssues that a r e c o mmo n t o h e r w i th h o l d i n gc l a i m a n d h e r C AT c l a i m.

B Addr e s s i ngDi s i ’ s wi thh o l di ngc l a i m, we co ncl ud e that she has m et her burden ofdem onst ra ti ng a cl ear probabi l i ty that, i fr etur ned to J or dan, sh e would be perse cuted o n a ccount ofherm em ber shi p i n the soc i al gr ou p s he ha s i de nt i fi e d. Th e IJ, the Bo a r d, a nd the A tto rn ey G en er al a ll tak e t h e p os itio n t h at if B es em d id14 N o. 10

- 2899 ki l l Dis i, hi s a cti on wou ld r eflec t o nl y a per sonal di spu te , n ot any th i ngb as ed o n h ermem be r sh i p i n a b r o a de r s o c i a l g r o up . I ftha twe r e a n a c c ur a t e de s c r i pti on o fthe si tuati on, the gov er nm ent woul d be co rr ect t h at relie f is u n av aila b le. Se e, e . g. , G r a v a v . INS , 20 5 F. 3d 1177, 11 81 n. 3 ( 9th Ci r. 20 00) (“P urel y per sonal re tr ibuti on i s, o fcourse , notper secuti on o n acco unt [ of a p r o t e c t e d g r o u n d ]
. ” )
. T h e IJ c o nc l u d e d , “ [ B e s e m] inten d s to harm th e resp ond en t, not becau se of [ he r] affi l i at i o n wi tho ther w o m ena cc us ed o fa dul te r y, b ut ra ther, bec ause he bel i eve s s he has engag ed i n conduct th at w oul d bri ng di shonorto the f am i l y. ” Thi s was evi dent, the IJ th ought, bec ause ther e was no i nd i cati on “thatBesem i s a cti vel y s eek i ng o ut o ther wom en acc us ed of ad ultery.” Th e B oard and the gove rnm en t’s br i ef s r epe atthi s p osi ti o n a l m o stv erba ti m , i nc l udi ng the a rgum ent that Bese m ’ s di spute m ust be personal be ca us e he i s no t th r ea te ni ngde ath t o o th erwomen. Perhaps there is s up er fi ci alappealto thi s a rgum ent, bu t its force d issi p a t e s q uickly w he n w e exa m ine it m ore ca r eful l y . The r e i s no pe r so na l di sp ut e bet wee n Di sia nd he r brothe r. H e has not vow ed to k illher bec au se of a quarr ela bout w hethershe orBesem sho uld i nheri t a par ce lo fl an d, o r b ec au se s he di d a b ad j o b r unning hi s s tor e, o r because she bro ke Besem ’ s f avo ri te toy as a c h ild . Sh e fa c es d e a t h b e c au se of a w id ely -h eld soc i alnor m i n J or dan

— a no rm thati m poses behav i or al obl i gat i ons on herand p er m i ts Besem to enf or ce them i n the mos t dr as ti c way . The dispute b etwee n Di sia nd Besem i s s i m plya pie ce o fa c om ple x cul tura l co nstr uct that enti tl es m al e m em ber s o ff am i l i es disho n or ed byN o. 10

- 2899 15 perce i ved bad act s o ffem ale re l ati ves to ki l l tho se w om en. The m an wh o does the k i l l i ng m ay have a perso nal m oti vati on i n the sense thathe i s a ngrythat hi s s i ste r has di shonor ed the f am i l y, o r he m ay re gr et th e nee d to tak e s uch an i rr evo cabl e s tep. Ei therway, h e is killin g h er be c a u se so c iet y h as d ee m ed th at th is is a p er m iss ible

— m a y b e in so m e e ye s t h e o n ly

— cor re ct c o u r s e ofa c t i o n a n d th e g o v e r n me n th a s wi th d r a wn i ts prot ecti on f ro m the vi cti m s. The very f act th at these are called “h onor kill ings” d em ons trates th at th ey a re ki l l i ngs with br oaderso ci alsi gni fi cance. This hel ps to expl ai n w hy the f act th at B ese m does not h av e e ith er a d u ty or (w e a ss u m e) t h e in c lin at ion to kill w om en fro m o therf am i l i es i s i m m ate ri al

. The so ci al code th at Besem f ol l ows has a noi nted hi m ( orano ther ofDis i ’ s m al e r el ati ves) as the pers on with the ri ght t o ki l l t h e w om an wh o disho nor ed hi s f am i l y; i t has not giv en hi m the ro l e o fki l l i ng wom en wh o disho noro ther m en ’s f am i l i es. I n the sam e way, i n a s oci etythat pract i ces fem al e g eni talm uti l ati on, ea ch f am i l y i s r es p o n s ib l e f o r c a r r y i n go u tth e o p e r a t i o n o n i t s o wn gi r l s . Bu t the f a mi l i e s a r e no t t a k i ng thi s s t e p to m ake a per sonalst ate m ent. They do i t be cause thei r soc iety te lls th em th at th ey a r e h arb or in g a n ou tc as t a n d th eir o wn so ci als ta ndi ngwi l l s ufferi fthe y d o no th i ng . The f ac t tha t Bes em ha s no t k i l l ed o th er s sa y s no th i ng ab o utwhethe r hi s per sec ut i o n o fDi siwi l l b e o n a cc o unt o fhe r mem be r sh i p i n a pa r ti cul ars o ci algroup. I m ag i ne th e ne o - N az i who b ur ns do wn th e ho us e o fa n A fri canA m er i can f am i l y. W e would nev ersa y that th is w as a per so na l di spu te b ec au se the ne o - N az i di d no t bur n16 N o. 10

- 2899 do wn al l o fthe ho us es b el o ng i ngt o Af r i ca n- Am er i ca ns i n the town. The si tuati on her e i s a nal ogo us. IfBesem kille d D isi i t w o u l d be on ac c ou n t o f h er m em b er sh ip in the p a r t i c ul a r s o c i a l g r o up t o wh i c h s he h a s b e e n a s s i g ne d.

C That l eave s the questi on

— r el ev an t bo tht o wi thho l di ng an d th e C AT

— w hetheri t i s probabl e that Bese m actually w il l kil l D isii f sh e return s to Jor d an . A fter hearing D isi’s an d Sa rh an ’s t es tim on y on th at iss u e, th e IJ w ro te , “In r eg ar ds to the de ta i l s o fthe thr ea t m ade b y Be se m , a nd th e resp ond en ts’ testim ony abou t the m an ne r and circum sta nces ofthe thre at and the feartheyexper ien ced af te r i twa s ma d e , th e C o u r tfi n d s th a tth e t e s ti m o ny w as c r e d ible .” T h e B oa rd sa id n ot h in g a b ou t t h at cr ed ibi l i ty fi nd i ng. W hen he i ssued hi s deci si on, the IJ l i ste d as a r eas on f ordenyi ng r el i efthat h e d i d not thi nk tha t D isif aced a contin uin g th reat from Be sem . Th e IJ’ s opi ni on s ays thati ts “l i m i ted cr edibi l i ty j ud gm ent doe s n otex te n d to th e re sp on d en ts ’ sp ec u lat ion th at [D isi] w i l l be ass ass i nated i n an hono r ki l li ng o n herr etur n to J or dan orthatthe J or danian gov er nm ent i s unabl e o r u n w illing t o p ro te c t h er .” P er h ap s t h is m ea n s t h at th e IJ thought that Disiand S arhan genui nel y b el i eve d that Besem would ki l l Dis i, but that t hei r bel i efwas unreasonab l e. B u t th at i s no t what he s ai d. W e ca nnot re conci l e the ju d ge’s wil l i ngness to bel i eve the evi dence th at B es em h as sw or n to ca rry ou t t h is m u r d e r w ith h is l ate r dism i ssa l o fthatthr eatas enti re l y s pecula ti ve. Inall th es e c as es , th e p ro sp ec t o f h ar m o c c u rrin g in th e fut ur e i s ani nfer en ce bas ed o n f ac ts i n the r ec o r d. TheN o. 10

- 2899 17 IJ acc epted the evi dence in the r eco rd sho w i ng tha t Bes e m ma de the s e e xp l i c i t thr e a t s . Th i s i nc l ud e d not onl y Di si ’ s a n d S arhan’s cr edibl e a ccount ofthe danger posed by Besem , but al so evi dence thatB ese m had bee n abu sive to Disi in th e pa st an d the letter from Sarhan ’s fat h er th at rec ou n te d B es em ’s p lan to kill D isi. T h er e is lite ra lly n o e vid en c e o n th e o th er sid e o f th e b ala n c e in th i s r ec o rd

— nothi ng to cas t doubt on Di si ’ s t est i m ony, an d noth ing to in d ica te th at B esem has forgiven or forgo tt en D isi’s alleg ed d ish on or ab le a c t. W ith ou t s u c h ev id en c e, th e re c or d o v e r w h elm in gly su p p or ts th e p ro p os itio n th at it is m or e like ly th an n ott h at B es em w ill ei therse ver el y har m o r m urder her if she i s r etur ned to Jord an . C

f

. S h t a r o v. G o nz a les , 43 5 F
. 3d 711, 71 5 ( 7th C ir. 2006).

IV Thi s br i ng s us t o the r ole o fthe J o r dan i ang o ve r nm ent. “P er secuti on i s s om ethi ng a gove r nm e ntdoes , ei th erdi r ec tl y o r b y abe tti ng( an d thus b ec o m i ngr es po nsib le f or ) pri vate di scr i m i nati on bythr owing i n i ts l ot w i th the deeds o r by p ro vi ding prot ecti on s o i ne ffec tu altha t itb ec o m es a s en sibl e i nfer en ce tha t th e gov er nm ent s ponsor s the m i sco nd uct. ” H o r v. G o nz a les , 4 0 0 F
. 3 d 4 8 2 , 4 8 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ; s e e al so B a l ogun v. A shcroft, 3 74 F
. 3d 4 92, 4 99 n. 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)
. Di sic o nte n d s t h at th e g ov er n m en t o f Jord an ca n n otan d w ill not do anythi ng to prote c t her, but the a gencyr ej ecte d thi s a rgum ent. A fterr evi ew i ng the ev i dence of th e J o r d a n i a n g o v e r n me n t ’ s t r e a t me n to fh o n o r c r i me s , we18 N o. 10

- 2899 concl ud e that the r eco rd per m i ts no co ncl usi on o ther than thatthe gov er nm ent i s ineffecti ve w hen it com es to provi ding prot ecti on t o w om en w hose behav i or pla ces them i n the gr oup w ho a re thr eat ened w ith honorki l l i ngs. W e no te that thi s s how i ng sa ti sfies bo th the s tandards f orfi nd i ng g ove rnm entalact ion fo r pu rp oses ofwi thho l di nga nd a l so tho se unde r the CAT, w hi ch r equi re s that the “pai n orsuffer i ng” m ust be “infl i ct ed byo r a t th e i ns ti g at i o n o fo r w ith the c o ns en t or acquie sc ence of a publi c offi ci al or oth er per son a c t i ng i n a n o ffi c i a l c a p a c i t y . ” 8 C

. F
. R
. § 2 0 8
. 1 8 ( e mp ha sis add ed ).

A The Bo ar d ha d be f o r e i t a su bs ta nt i al amoun t of i nf o r m at i o n abo utho no r k i l li ng s i n J o r dan, i nc l udi ngthe St ate Departm ent’ s 2 007 Country Reporto n H um an Rights Pr acti ces f orJ or dan, http: //w w w . sta te. gov/g/ drl /r l s/hrr pt/2 007/ 1005 98. ht m , an Am nestyI nter nati onal pu bl i cati on, “Lega l i zed M urder: Kil l i ng f or‘ H onor ’ ” ( see A gencyReco rd at43 7) , a H um an Ri ghts W atch publ i cation called, “H onoring the K ille r s,” ( see A gen cy R ecord at 514) , a l aw j ournalar ti cl e, Val er i e Pl ant, HonorKi l l i ngs and t heAs yl um G end e rGap , 15 J. T RANS NAT ’ L L. & P OL ’ Y 10 9 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , a n d v a r i o u s o th e r n e ws p a p e r a c c o u n t s a nd affi davi ts about the pr obl em o fhonorki l l i ngs. Acco r di ngto the St at e Depa r tment ’ s 20 07r epo r t, dur i ng that yea r ther e were “ 17 r epor ted i nstance s o fhonor cri m es that re sul ted i n the death o fthe vi cti m , al though ac ti vi sts r epor ted thataddit i onalunrepor ted cas es l i kelyN o. 10

- 2899 19

o cc ur red

. A Nov embe r [ 20 07 ] UN De ve l o pm en t F und f o r Wo me n s t u d y s t a t e d th a t2 5 p e r c e n to fh o n o r c r i me vi cti ms i n the c o un t r y we r e k i l l e d me r e l y b e c a us e th eywer e su spe ct ed o fi nv o l ve m en t i n a n i l l i ci t r el at i o nshi p. ” U.S

. Dep’t ofS tat e, Cou n tr y Reporto n H um an Rights Pr acti ces f orJ or dan (2 007)
. A t o ra l ar gum ent, the g ove rnm ent c alle d o ur a tte nti on t o the f act that thi s a m ounts to 17 honorki l l i ngs duri ng a one- yea r pe r i o d in a c o untr y w i th a p o pu l a t i o n o f6 mi l l i o n. Apparentl y i t m eant to sugge st that the l ow nu m bero f h o n o r k i l l i n g s me a n s i ti s n o tmu c h o fa p r o b l e m. We do not see the l ogi c; a com m on ( though no t ine vi tabl e) feature ofp er se c uti on i s that the vi cti m s co m e fro m m in or ity p op u lat ion s. T h at th er e a re few p u b lic ly re cor ded i nstance s o fki ll i ngs withi n a par ti cul arso ci al gr oup does not m ean that the U

. S. governm ent i s fre e to r emov e so m eo ne who ha s ex per i en ce d a di rect and cre d ibl e threa t o fsuch a ki l l i ng. N ordoes i t a dd re ss the tw i n probl em s o funderre port i ng and m eas ures s h o r to fk i l l i n g( s u c h a s mu t i l a t i o n ) th a t t a k e p l a c e . C o mp ar e t h e m u tila tio n d es c rib ed by Joh n W en d le, The Ais ha Bi b iCas e : He r F a t he rWants t o Pe t i t i on t heTal i b an fo r Justice, T I ME, J ul y 1 4, 2 01 1 ( wom anwho se e ar s an d nos e w ere sli ced offf or f ail ing to ad he re to Shari’a law ). W e find si m i l ar l y unconvinci ng the unadorned f act th at all17 hon or cri m es com m itted du ring 2 007 w ere pros ecuted. Pro secuti on a t t i m es i s a n em p ty ges ture
. The sente nces gi ven out i n J or dan fo r honorcr i m es sh ow th at p r o s e c u t ion s o f h on or cr im es res u lt in little m o r e th ana s l ap o n the wri st
. T he Sta te De par tmentput i tthi s wa y : “ W hi l e the de fe nd a nt s a r e a l mos ta l w ays20 N o. 10

- 2899 unive rs al l y found gui l ty, defendants o ften r ecei ved tok en sente nces, w i th the charg es often re du ced fr om pr emedi ta te d m ur dert o mans l au g ht er . M an y men c o nvi ct ed o fa n h o no r c r i m e r ec ei ve d m i ni m al p r i so n s en t e nc e s , us ua l l y no mor e tha n s i x mon ths

. ” U. S

. De p’t of St ate , C ountr y Repor t o n H um an Ri ghts Pract i ces f or J or dan (2 007)
. A s ix -m onth sentence f orthi s k i nd o f pr emedi ta te d m ur der, whena l l o th ermurde r s ar e puni shed m uch m or e s eve re l y, se nd s a st ro ng so ci alm essag e o fto l er ati on f orthe pract i ce. Such l eni ent s entence s a re m ade poss ible b y a l ega l f ra m ew or k that f avo rs tho se w ho co m m i t ho norki l l i ngs. The Board had i nfo rm ati on about the J or dan ian l ega l re gi m e b efore i t, but i t di d not di scuss the l ega l f r amewor ki n e i th ero fi ts de ci si o ns . Art i cle 340 o fthe J or danian penal co de prov i des a l eg al j usti fi cati on f or ho no r c r i mes . Eff o r t s t o r e pe a l tha tp r o v i s i o n have fai led rep eated ly in the elected l ow er h o u se of J ord an ’s Parl i am ent. M or eov er, tho se w ho co m m i t ho norki l l i ngs often invoke ar ti cl e 9 8 o fthe code, wh i ch r educes p en alt ies w h en th e crim e is c om m itt ed in a “fit of fu r y.” Acc o r di ngt o o ne r e po r ttha tthe a g e nc y c o ns i de r e d: I fth e e x t e n u a t i n ge x c u s e i s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r a c r i me p un ishab le by dea th, suc h as p rem ed it ated m urd er, ar ti cl e 9 8 pro vi des thatthe penal ty be r ed u c ed to a m i ni m um o fo ne ye ari n pri son. Fo r othe r fel oni es, i ti s r e du c ib l e to a m i ni mum o fs i x mon ths a nd a m axi m um o ftwo ye ar s. M or eov er, co urts m ay fu rt h er h alv e t h e s en te n c e if th e v ict im ’s fa m ily “w ai ves” i ts ri ght t o fi l e a co m pla i nt o fthe cri m e.N o. 10

- 2899 21 I n m urders f or “honor, ” gi ven the f am i l y’ s co m pli ci ty i n the c r i m e, the fam i l y ne ar l y a l way s “wai ve s” the ri ght t o fi l e a co m pla i nt. Thus, “honor” ki l l er s m ay r ec ei ve s en te nc es o fs i x months

— an d often d o. I f a k i l l erha s se r ve d tha t m ucht i m e awai tingt r i al, the se nten ce may be c o m m ut ed to t i m e se r ve d a nd he m aywal ka way a fr ee man. T h ou gh ge n d er -n eu tr al in lan gu ag e, a r t icle 98 in p ra c tic e is ap p lied to be n efit on ly m en . H u m an R igh ts W at c h, H o no ring the K illers ( A gency Re co r d a t 53 2)
. Thi s l eg alr eg i m e an d the min i m alpuni sh

m en ts tha t r es ul t m ea n tha t th e J o r dan i ang o ve r nm en t at bestdoes al m ostnothi ng and atworstpro m ote s the pr acti ce o fhonorki l l i ngs. The o nl y pr o te ct i o n th at J o r dan o ffer s to th ose w ho w oul d other w i se beco m e vi cti m s i s v ol untaryi m pri sonm ent; a w om an w ho fear s that she i s i n danger m ay turn hers el f i n to a pri son w here she can be kept in cu stody. J or danian author i ti es “r egul ar l y pla ce[] potenti al vi cti m s o fhonorcr i m es i n i nvol untarypro tecti ve c u st od y . . . w h er e som e ha ve re m ain ed for u p to 20 ye ar s.” U
. S. Dep’t ofS tat e, CountryR ep or t o n H um an Ri ghts Pract i ces f or Jo rd an ( 2007 )
. A t the end of20 07, atl eas t 15 w o menwe r e i n pr o t e c t i v e c us t o dy

. T hi s p r a c t i ce str i kes us a s be i ng m uch cl ose r to p er secuti on than to pr o te cti on from harm

— th e v i cti m m ust cho ose b e t we e n de a th a nd a n i nd e fi ni t e p r i s o n t e r m (i nd eed , a te r m l o ng erb y a n o r dero fmagn i tu de tha n the o ne fac ed by h er p e rs ec u to r). In t h is c on n ec tio n, i t is i m port ant t o re call th at the I N A pro hibi ts re m ova l to a22 N o. 10

- 2899 countr y w here “the al i en’ s l i fe o rf r e e d o m w oul d be threa te ne d” o n a c c o un t o f a pr o t e c t e d g r o un d. 8 U. S

. C. § 1 231 (em p ha sis add ed ). Lit tl e s eem s t o have changed i n J or dan . T h e Stat e Dep artm ent’ s r epor t fro m 19 99 expla i ned that the l aw all o wed f o r r edu ce d puni sh m en ts f o r ho no r c r i m es a nd that l aw enf or cem ent t re atm ent o fm en acc used of honorcr i m es “r efl ects widesprea d unw i l l i ngness to re cogni ze the abuse invol ved orta ke ac tio n aga i nst the pr obl em . ” U.S. Dep ’ t o fS tat e, CountryRepor ts on Hu ma n R i g h t s P r a c t i c e s f o r J o r d a n ( 1 9 9 9 ) , ht t p : //www . state
. gov/g/d rl/rl s/hrrp t/1999 /418.htm

. I n th at year th ere we r e a tl e a s t1 6 h o n o r k i l l i n g s i n J o r d a n ; th e po l i c e i mp ri sone d w om en to pro tectthem ; and the J or danian l eg isla tu re rejec te d effo rt s t o re for m th e p en al c od e. Id. Com pare to these facts the r epor t fro m 20 09 ( w hi ch the a gencydi d not con sid er b ut to wh i ch w e m ay re fer in th e c ou rs e o f rea c h in g ou r d ec isio n, A g b o rv. G o nz a les , 487 F. 3d 499, 503 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ) , wh i ch r el ate s tha t“ [ v ] i o l e nc e a nd ab us e a g a i ns two menc o nt i nu e d, i ncl ud i ng . . . num er ous ho norcr i m es” and that “[ a] uthor i ti es pros ecuted the 24 r epor ted i nstance s o f ho m ici d es r el at ed to ho no r c r i m es tha t o cc ur r ed dur i ng the y ear . ” U.S

. Dep’t o f S tat e, CountryRepor t o n Hu ma n R i g h t s P r a c t i c e s f o r J o r d a n ( 2 0 0 9 ) , h t t p : // ww w. st at e.g ov /g /d rl/rls /h rrp t/ 20 09 /n ea /1 36 07 1.h tm . Th e o n ly b rig h t s p otin t h is p ict u re ca m e fro m on e n ew ly lau n c h ed init iat ive : On Jul y 2 8, [ 2009 , ] t h e chi efj ud ge ofthe cri m i nal cour ts announced the e stab lishm ent o fa speci alN o. 10

- 2899 23 cri m i nal co urt tr ibunal to hear a l l honorcr i m e ca ses . I n i t s fi r s tr ul i ngo n Oc t o b e r 1 2 , [ 2 0 0 9 , ] the t r ibunal i ss ued a 1 5-ye armurde r s en te nc e . . . . Thi s se nt e nc e ma r k e d the fi r s tt i me a l o wer cour ti s s ue d a ful l murde r s en te nc e i n a n h o no r c r i m e ca se without gr anti ng so m e f or m o fl eni ency. Id. T he r epo r t co nt r as ts thi s l o ngpr i so n t er m t o the typ ical six-m ont h sente nc es an d th en p ut s t h e refor m eff or t in conte xt: “Despi te the j ud i ci aleffor ts the g over n m en t h ad n o p lan or p ro gr am to ch an ge p u b lic attitu d es tow ard hon or crim es or to d eter fut ure ki l l i ngs, and i t h ad m ade no l egi sl ati ve changes to str engthe n sentenci ng g uidel i nes. ” Id. Thi s fi nal st ate
m en t r epr es en ts the s tro ng es t co nde m na ti o n tha t th e St ate Departm ent has i ssued r el ating to the J or danian gov er nm ent’ s e ff or t t o curb honorki l l i ngs.

B A fte r re vi ew i ng the se m ate ri al s, the IJ deci ded that “[ t] he o bj ecti ve evi dence ofr eco rd does notes tabl i sh th at th e gov er n m en t of Jord an w ou ld be u n ab le or u n w illi ngt o pr o te ctthe r es pond en t f r o m fut ur e ha r m . ” The Bo ar d a g r ee d, c o nc l udi ngtha t “the J o r dan i ang o ve r nm en t con d em ns t h e p ractice of hon or ki ll ings.” W e are ata l o ss t o unde r st an d ho w the y c ame to thi s co nc l us i o n i n l i g hto fthe e v i de nc e we h a v e j us tr e v i e we d. The IJ n oted that honorcr i m es ar e punis hed m uch l e s s s e v e r e l y tha n o the r c r i mes ( qu i t e a n un de r s t ate
m en t

— the 2007 St ate Dep ar tm ent re port say s th at in24 N o. 10

- 2899

or dinar y c ase s the m axi m u m p en al ty f orfi rs t- degre e mur d e r i s d e a th, a n d th e ma x i mu m p e n a l t y f o r s e c o nd

degre e m urder i s 1 5 y ear s in pri son) , b ut he add ed th at“ va r i o us no n- g o ve r nm en ta l o r gan i za ti o ns , wi ththe supp or t o fthe curr en t Kingand Queen, ar e trying to r e f o r m the penal code. ” ( Em phasi s a dd ed. ) A tte m pted re f or m , l i ke a bi l l that f ai l s to beco m e l aw , d oe s not co unta s concrete g o ve r nm en t ac ti o n. I n f ac t, the o nl y c o nc r et e m ea sure t he a g en cyc o ul d na m e th atthe J o r dan i ang o ve r nm en t ha s ta k enwas i ts o ffert o put w om en in jail if th ey fe l t th re at en ed . Th e a ge n c y s aid w i th co m m endabl e underst ate m ent that thi s “ is n ot an att ra cti ve op tion f orvi cti m s. ” As w e e xplai ned abov e, it is n otan op tio n atall

— i t i s direct per se cut i o n, i n the f or m o fdepri vati on o fan in n ocent pers on’ s l iber ty, by the g ove rnm ent. The age ncy i gnor ed str ong evi dence ofgo ver nm en tal to ler at ion o f, or in d iffer en c e to , h on or cr im es . C f. Ga ti m i I

, 578 F.3d a t 6 1 7 . A ttem p ts to am en d l aw s to help curb viol en ce again st w om en are w elcom e step s, bu t the y are no t ev i den ce tha t the g o ve r nm en t o fJ o r danha s th e po wero r the de si r e t o pro te cta w o m ani n Di si ’ s po si ti o n. N o r i s th er e m uche vi den ce th ate ff o r ts a r e co m i ng f r o m wi th i n the J o r d an i ang o ve r nm en t

— mo s tr e f o r ms see m to be propos ed by non- gov er nm entalo rg ani zati ons. Other case s re cogni ze the probl em of honor ki l l i ngs and the g ove rnm ent’ s l acka dais icalat ti tude. S ee Su r adi v. H o lder, 2 0 1 1 W L 2 2 1 5 5 4 8 , a t * 2 ( 9 th Ci r . J un e 8 , 20 11) ( “The IJ ’ s fi nd i ng tha t the J or danian gov er nm ent doe s not acqui esce i n honorki l l in gs i s no t s up port ed by substa nti alev i dence. ”)
. S ee al so A bd elgh a ni v . Ho l der, 30 9N o. 10

- 2899 25 F. A p p ’x 19 , 22 (7 th C ir. Feb . 3, 200 9); Yayl ac i cegiv. Gonzales , 17 5 F
. A pp ’ x 33, 36 ( 7th Cir. M ar . 2 9, 20 06)
. The S i xth Ci r cui t dec i ded i n Kha lili v. Ho lder, 557 F .3 d 429 (6th C ir. 2009 ) , thata m an fear i ng he m i ght b e ki l l ed beca use o f m ar i talm i sco nd uct i fhe r etur ned to Jor dan w as not en ti tl ed to wi thho l di ngo fr emov al

. The o bv i o us di ffer en ce betw ee n tha t ca se a nd thi s o ne i s th atthe pet i ti o ne r i n the S i xth Ci r cui t was no t a femal e, a nd th e pr o bl em we ha ve i den ti fi ed i s o ne th atc o nc erns vi o l en ce b y men a g ains t wom en . W e co nc l ude tha t th e ag ency reac he d the wro ngc o ncl us i o n. The governm en t o fJ o r dani s co m pl i ci t i n the ha rm that Disi w il l su ffer at the h an d s of he r brothe r.

V We mu s t a d d r e s s t w o r e ma i n i n g i s s u e s b e f o r e we co nc l ude

. The a gen cyde ci ded th ate ve n i fthe S arha ns w er e o ther w i se enti tl ed to r el i ef, wit h h old i ng o fr em ov al orprote ction u nd er the C A T w as no t nec essary b ec au se th ey h ad n otsh ow n t h a t t h e y w ou ld be u n ab le to r el o ca te to a vo i d Be se m o nc e th eya r r i ve d i n J o r dan

. T h e IJ d id n otp ro vid e m u c h r e as on in g t o s u p p or t t h is concl usi on, the Board di d not m enti on r el oca ti on a t a l l, and the g ove rnm ent’ s br i efdoes notaddress the i ssue. This l ack ofr eas oni ng i s a l one enough t o j usti fy r em an d in g t h e is su e t o t h e a ge n c y. E.g
. , Ssa li v. G o nz a les , 424 F. 3d 556, 5 64 (7 th Ci r. 20 05)
. But ther e i s a deeper p roblem

. “R elocating to an oth er p art of th e c o u n try does not m ean l i vi ng i n hi ding. ” Agbor, 48 7 F
. 3d at 50 5. The e v i de nc e i nd i c a t e s tha tBe s e m wi l l b e l o o k i ngf or26 N o. 10

- 2899 Di sis pec i fi ca l l y ; i n a c o untry the si ze o fJ o r dan, s he w oul d have t o l i ve i n hi ding to avo i d him

. (J or dan i s 3 4, 495 s q u a r e mi l e s , s e e h t t p : // t r a v e l

. n a t i o n a l g e o g r a p h i c . c o m/ tr avel/c ountr i es/

j or dan-f acts /, j ust al i ttl e bi t l ar ger than the S tat e of M ain e, wh i ch i s 3 3, 128 square m i l es. S ee h tt p ://w w w .th eu s5 0.c om /a re a.p h p .) F i n a l l y, th e g o ve r nm e n tu r g e s th a t, e v e n i fwe c o n c l u d e tha tfu r th e r p r o c e e d i n g s a r e wa r r a n t e d , we sh o ul d d is m i ss S arha n’ s der i va ti ve c l ai m o n the gr ound that t h e A ct doe s no t pr ovi de benefi ts to an al i en’ s f am i l y when the al i en cl ai m s withhol ding of re m ova l o r re l ief und erthe CA T. N ei therthe IJ nor th e B oard ap p ears to ha ve con sid e r ed w he th er Sarhan ’s case sho uld be r ej ecte d on thi s g ro u n d , b ecause they chose i nstea d to deny r el i efto bo th peti ti oners. That m eans that th e g ove rnm ent’ s a l ter nati ve basi s f or affi rm ing the age n c y ’s d ecision in pa rt i s not be fore us . “ T he S upr eme Co ur t o fthe Uni te d S ta te s ha s admoni sh ed, i n [ SE Cv. C hen ery, 31 8 U.S

. 80 , 87

- 88 ( 1943 ) ] , that w e m ay not sancti on a n age ncy deci si on b as ed upon th e po st
- ho c r at ion al i za ti o ns o fa ppel l at e co uns elf o r the age ncy’ s deci si on. ” M oab , 50 0 F
. 3d at 659. In a n y e v e nt, i t is not ap p aren t to us at th is j un ctu re that the g ove rnm ent’s posi ti on i s co rr ect. W hi l e co urts have re cogniz ed that the pr ovi si ons ofthe I N A go ve r n i n ga s y l u m exp li cit lype r m i t der i va ti ve c l ai m s an d th at th os e g ov er n in g w ith h ol d i n g of re m ov al d o n ot, e . g. , Al iv . As hc roft, 3 9 4 F
. 3 d 7 8 0 , 7 8 2 n . 1 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c o mp aring 8 U
. S. C

. § 1158(b)(3) w ith 8 U

. S. C

. § 1231(b)(3)) , w e s ee no r eas on t o re ad i nto the Act’ s s i l ence aN o. 10

- 2899 27 hi dd en r ule thatbar s der i vati ve claim s in al l i nstance s w he re an alien seeks w ithh olding of rem oval. M oreover, S a r h a n ’ s c l a i m m a y n o te v e n b e d e r i v a t i v e : i ns o me i nstance s per secuti on o fo ne spo u se can i tse l fco nsti tute p er se c u tio n of th e o th er sp ou se . Ko ne v . Ho lder, 62 0 F. 3d 760, 76 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( quoti ng G atim i I , 57 8 F
. 3d at 617 f orthe propos i ti on th at “[ g] eni talm uti l ati on o f one’ s wi fe, unl es s o ne ha ppen s to b e a su ppo r te r o fthe p r a c t i c e , i s a w a y t o p u n i s h o n e ” )
. I fD i s i w e r e c o mpel l ed to r etur n to J or d an bec ause Sarhan w as re m ove d ( m aybe f o r fi na nc i alr ea so ns , o r s i m pl y t o ke ep th e f am i l y t oge ther ) , per haps the thre at ofDis i ’ s death w ou ld be su fficie n t p er se c u tio n of Sa rh an to gra n t h im wi thho l di nga s wel l

. On r emand, S arha n wi l l ha ve the op p o r tu ni tyt o de ve l o p hi s o wn cl ai m s f o r r el i efa par t f ro m tho se that ar e der i vati ve ofDis i ’ s. W e r eco gni ze th at th e B o ar d m ay co n c lu d e t h at Sa rh an is n oteligib le f orr el i ef

. I fi t d oe s, however, i t i s a l w ays poss ibl e t o m ak e a final a ppea l t o the Att o r ne y Ge ne r alf o r the exer ci se ofhi s hum ani tar i an pow eri n thi s pai n ful si tuati o n. T he se ques ti o ns a r e f o r the a g en cyi n the fi r sti nsta nce; we do not re sol ve them her e.

VI T h e pr acti ce of honor ki l l i ng i s sti l l w i despread in cer tai n part s o fthe w or l d. A l ong w i th fem al e g eni tal m uti l ati on, hum an tr affi cki ng and sl aver y, spousa l r ape, an d do m es ti c ba tt er y, i t i s amongthe mos t se vere abuses thatwom en f ace ar ou n d t h e g l obe

. Vi taltho ugh th e enfo rce m ent of our i m m i gr ati on l aw s m ay be, it is equal l y i m port ant t o gi ve fullf or ce t o the features o f28 N o. 10

- 2899 th o se l aws tha t ar e des i gn ed to g i ve s he l te r i n the U n ited S tat es to peopl e who w oul d experi ence extr ao r d i n a r y ab u s e i fth e y w e r e se ntba c kt o th e i r h o me countr y. The l aw s regar ding asy l um , withhol ding of re m ova l, and the U ni ted S tat es’ s inter nati onalo bl i gati o ns unde r the CAT ar e no less i m po r ta nttha n the l aws e st ab l i sh i ngthe g ener alr ul es f o r i m m i g r at i o n. The Board’ s deci si on i n thi s ca se l oo ked to o n ar ro w l y a t the ab h or re nt pra cti ce o fhonorki l l i ng i n J or dan. I n so doi ng, i t f ai l ed to r ea li ze that w om en wh ose behav i or vi ol ate s that s oci ety ’ s m or alnor m s ( and w ho thus m ay s uffe r thi s c o ns e qu e nc e ) f o r m a c o he r e ntso c i a l g r o up , th at th e e n su in g d ea th n or m ally atth e h an d of a fa m ily m em beram ounts to perse cuti on o n acco unt ofthe ir m embe r sh i p i n tha t g r o up, a nd tha t th e g o ve r nm en t continues to be unw i l l i ng o r unabl e t o sto p thi s br utal i ty. I n thi s ca se, Dis i has s h ow n t hat i t i s m or e l i kel y than n o t th at sh e w ill be m u rd er ed by h er br ot h er if sh e is re turned to Jo rdan be cause she i s par t o fthi s s oci al g r o up . T he J o r da ni a n g o v e r nme ntc a n or w i l l do nothi ng to hel p her, and she cannot re aso nabl y b e e x p e c t e d t o r e l o c a t e , b e c a u s e B e s e m wi l l t r a c kh e r d o wn no m att er w h er e s he i s withi n J or dan. Sarhan’s cas e and that o fthe chi l d re n is m or e co m ple x. W hat i s cl ear i s that furtherpro ceedi ngs a re nece ssa ry b efor e e i ther Disio r her f am i l y m em ber s ca n be re m ove d. W e there

f or e G RANT th e p e t i t i o n s f o r r e v i e w an d R EMA ND th e ca se s to the a g en cyf o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co nsi st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

9- 2- 11