N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M UM IN AB ASS,

Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-74045 Age n c y No. A208-302-495
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 9, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, KLEINFELD, a nd W
. FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s. M um in Aba ss, a

native and c itiz e n of Gha n a , pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e 

# FIL ED APR 27 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Singh v . Holde r , 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th C ir. 2014)

(c ita tions omitte d ). W e re ve rse the B IA’ s finding of ine ligibility for re lie f only

if the e vide n c e “ c om

pe ls” the re ve rsa l. Zi Zhi Tang v . Gonzale s , 489 F.3d 987, 990 (9th C ir. 2007). W e g ra

nt the pe tition for re vie w a nd re m and. I. Asy lum The B IA’ s only

ba sis for de ny ing Aba ss’ s a s y l um a p plic a tion wa s tha

t Aba ss ha d not m e t his burde n to show tha t the Gha nia n gove rnm e nt is “una

ble or unwilling to prote c t him from anti-ga y viole nc e or ha

rm .” In its a

nswe ring brie f, the g ove rnm e nt doe s not a rgue that Aba ss did not suffer pa st pe rse c ution; ra the r, the g ove rnm e nt only

a sks us to re m a

nd be c a use , in light of our de c ision in Bringas-Rodrigue

z , 850 F.3d 1051 (9th C ir. 2017) (e n ba nc ), the a ge nc y should have an othe r opportunity

to e lic it te stim ony

from Aba ss a bout whe the r he re porte d his a tta c k to the polic e , and if not, why not. Our “ una b le and unwilling”

sta nda rd wa s a lre a dy

e sta blishe d at the tim e both the IJ a

nd B IA re nde re d

the ir de c isions. Prior to Bringas-Rodrigue z , we artic ulate d se ve ra l wa

y s the gove rnm e nt’ s ina

bility and unwillingne ss to c ontrol pe rse c ution c ould be prove n. Se e , e .g., Rahimzadeh v
. Holde r , 613 F.3d 916, 921 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ de m onstra ting tha t a c ountry ’ s la

w s or c ustom s e ffe c tive ly de prive the pe titione r of any m e aningful re c ourse to gove rnm e nta l prote c tion” ); Id.

2a t 922 (c iting Av e tov a-Elisse v a v . IN S, 213 F.3d 1192, 1198 (9th C ir. 2000)) (“ e sta blishing tha

t priva te pe rse c ution of a

pa rtic ula r sort is wide spre a d a

nd we llknown but not c ontrolle d by the gove rnm e nt” ); i d. (quoting Orne las-C hav e z v . Gonzale z , 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th C ir. 2006) (“ c onvinc ingly e sta b lish[ing] tha

t [re porting] would ha

v e be e n futile or [would] have subje c te d [the a pplic ant] to furthe r a buse ” ). W e have a lso m a inta ine d tha t “ re porting pe rse c ution to gove rnm e nt a

uthoritie s is not e sse ntia l to de m onstra ting tha t the gove rnm e nt is
una ble or unwilling to prote c t [a pe titione r] from

priva te a c tors.” Afriy i e v . Holde r , 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th C ir. 2010). Eve n unde r the se a l re a dy

e sta blishe d sta

nda rds, the B IA disre g a

rde d a nd
m isc h ara c te riz e d substa

ntia l e vide nc e de m onstra

ting tha t Gha nia n offic ia ls a

re unwilling to prote c t LGB T individuals. The re c ord shows tha t polic e ofte n pa

rtake in e x tortions ta

rge ting ga y pe rsons a nd a re re luc ta nt to inve stiga

t e c la im s of hom ophobic a tta c ks. W

he n polic e do inte rve ne in m ob atta c k s of ga y pe rsons, the y , at tim e s, a

rre st the vic tim s. M ost im porta ntly , c onse nsua l inte rc ourse be twe e n two m e n is ille ga l in Gha na , a nd re ve a ling hom ose xua l ide ntity to the polic e c an

subje c t tha

t individual to pote ntia l a

rre st a nd prose c ution. The re fore ,

“ [Ghana ’ s] la

ws [a nd] c ustom s e ffe c t ive ly de prive [Aba ss] of a ny m e aningful
re c o urse ” and thus reporting his perse c ution would be “ futile .” Rahimzade h , 613
3F.3d at 922. Give n the ove rwhe lm ing e vide n c e c om pe ls the c onc lusion the Gha nia n gove rnm e nt is unwilling to prote c t LGB T individuals, it is unne c e s sa ry for Aba ss to provide

a dditiona l te stim ony

on this point.
a. W e ll-Founde d Fe ar O f Futur e Pe r se c ution Upon a finding of pa st pe rse c ution, Aba ss is pre sum e d to ha ve a we llfounde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of his se xua l orie ntat ion. Mamouzian v . Ashc roft , 390 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th C ir. 2004). Thegove rnm e nt
m ay re but the pre sum

ption of a we ll-founde d fe ar by

showing tha

t c ountry
c onditions ha

ve c h ange d in Gha

na or tha t Aba s s m ay

be a ble to re loc a te
som e whe re e lse in the c ountry to a v oid future pe rse c ution. Se e 8 C
. F.R . § 208.13(b)(1).

“ W he re the gove rnm e nt ha s fa ile d to a rgue , e ithe r in its subm

issions to the

IJ or in its brie fs be fore this pa ne l, for the e x iste nc e of c ha nge d c o untry

c onditions,
we ne e d not re m and to theIJ but, ra the r, m ay de te rm ine on our own tha t the pre s um ption is not re

butte d a nd, the re fore , tha

t the Pe titione r is
e ligiblefor a sy lum .” Quan v . Gonzale z , 428 F.3d 883, 889 (9th C ir. 2005); se e also Baballah v

. Ashc roft , 367 F.3d 1067, 1078 & n.11 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding that be c a u se INS fa i le d to re but pre sum ption of a we l l-founde d fe ar, pe titione r wa s sta tutorily e ligiblefor a sy lum ); N

dom v . Ashc roft , 384 F.3d 743, 756 (9th C ir.
42004), supe rse de d by statute on unre late d grounds (holding tha t a re m and for
a sy lum e ligibility is not ne c e s sa ry whe n gove rnm e nt fa ile d

to pre se n t e vide nc e of
c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions). He re , the gove rnm e n t did not pre se nt a ny e vide nc e , e ithe r be fore the IJ or this pa ne l , tha t c ountry c onditions ha

ve c ha nge d, nor did it a

rgue tha t Aba ss m ay be a b le to re loc a te . Thus, we m ay de te rm ine whe t

he r the pre sum

ption is rebutte d
and if Aba ss is e l igible for a sy l um . Se e Quan , 428 F.3d a t 889. “ In ge ne ra l, a

n a lie n sa t isfie s the subje c tive c om pone nt of the we ll-founde d fe ar te s t by

te stify ing c re dibly

a bout his fe ar of future pe rse c ution.” Id. a t 890 (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tions omitte d). Aba ss te stifie d tha t he is a fra id of his fa the r and the c om

m unity be c a

use the y will kill him

for be ing ga

y . “ T h e IJ did not
m ake any a dve rse c re dibility

findings a

bout [Aba ss’ s] te stim ony .” Id. Thus,

“ [Aba ss’ s] te stim ony re ga rding [his] fe ar of future pe rse c ution is suffic i e nt to
e sta blish [his] c la im

on this ground.” Id. ; se e Al-Harbi v . IN S , 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ [E] v e n a te n pe rc e n t c ha

nc e of pe rse c ution m ay

e sta blish a
we ll-founde d fe ar.” ). Aba ss’ s fe ar is a lso “ obje c tive ly re a sona ble .” Quan , 428 F.3d a

t 890. The
re c o rd re fle c ts pe rva sive ly hom ophobic attitude s tha t ofte n m anife st in violenc e towa rds ga y individuals a

nd the se attitude s show no signs of ch an ge . The re is a lso

5nothing to sugge st tha t c e rta in a re a s of Gha

na are m o re hospita

ble to ga y individuals or tha

t the polic e in c e rta in pa

rts of Gha na do not pa rtake in e xtortion of ga y pe rsons. The U.K. B orde r Age nc y re p ort sta te s tha t while re loc a tion m ay be possible , “ the re are . . . like l y to be diffic ultie s in finding sa fe ty through interna l
re loc a tion give n

tha t hom o phobic attitude s a

re pre va le nt a c ross the c ountry .” M ore o ve r, a ll de c l ara tions Aba ss provide d sta te tha t he will be kille d now tha t pe ople know tha

t he is ga y . Thus, we hold tha

t Aba ss is sta

tutorily e l igible for
a sy lum and “ re m and so tha t the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l m a

y e x e rc ise his disc re tion a s to whe the r to gra

n t [a sy lum ] re lie f.” Sae l v . Ashc roft , 386 F.3d 922, 930 (9th C ir. 2004). II. W ithholding of Re m oval Unde r the Ille ga l Im

m igration R e form

and Im m i grant R e s ponsibility Ac t (“ IIR IR A” ), “ [t] o qua lify for withholding of re m ova l, a n a lie n m ust de m onstra

te that it is m o re like l y

tha n not tha t he would be subje c t to pe rse c ut ion on oneof the spe c ifie d grounds.” K

hup v . Ashc roft , 376 F.3d 898, 905 (9th C ir. 2004) (c ita tion
and inte rna l quota

tions omitte d). A re b utta b le pre sum

ption tha t Aba ss would suffe r future pe rse c ution if he
we re re turne d to Gha

na i s e q u a lly a pplic a ble to his c l a im

for withholding of
re m ova l. 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(b)(1); se e Mutuk u v . Holde r , 600 F.3d 1210, 1213
6(9th C ir. 2010); Mousa v . Muk a se y , 530 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th C ir. 2008). For a ll the re a sons tha

t support Aba ss’ s we l l-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution a nd

“ [b] e c a u se the [gove rnm e nt] ha s fa ile d to re but this pre sum ption,” any

re a sona ble trie r of fa c t would be c o m pe lle d to c onc l ude tha

t it is “m ore like ly

tha n not tha t [Aba ss] would be subje c t to pe rse c ution upon re turning to [Gha na ] .” Baballah , 367 F.3d a

t 1079 (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

t ions omitte d). Thus, in a ddition to
re m anding to the

Attorne y Ge ne ra l to e xe rc ise disc re tion re ga rding a sy lum , we a lso re m and for a

n a ppropria te orde r withholding re

m o va l of Aba ss. Se e id. III. CAT Re lie f The B IA de nie d Aba ss’ s C AT c la im for two re a sons: (1) TheB IA found tha t Aba ss did not dem onstra

te tha t Gha nia n offic ia ls a c q

uie sc e d in his pa s t torture or would a c quie sc e in a

ny future torture ; a

nd (2) the B IA c onc lude d tha t Aba ss c ould
sa fe ly re loc a te to a

nothe r part of Gha

na . Aba ss is e ntitle d to re lie f unde r C AT if he e sta blishe s tha

t he would m ore like ly tha n not” be torture d in Gha

na . 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.16(c )(2). Torture
c onstitute s “ any a c t by whic h se ve re pa in or suffe ring, whe the r phy sic a l or m e nta l, is inte ntiona lly

inflic te d on a

pe rson for suc h purpose s a s . . . punishing him . . . for
an a c t he . . . ha s c om

m itte d . . . or for a

ny re a son ba se d on disc rim i nation of a ny kind, whe n suc h pa i n or suffe ring is inflic te d by or at the instiga

tion of or with the
7c onse n t or a c quie s c e nc e of a public offic ia l or othe r pe rson a c ting in a n offic ia l
c a pa c ity .” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18(a)(1).

a. G o ve r nm e nt Ac quie sc e nc e In T or tur e Public offic ia ls a c quie s c e in torture if the y : “ (1) have aware ne ss of the
a c tivity (or c onsc i ously

c lose the ir e y e s to the fa c t it is going on); a nd (2) bre a c h the i r le ga l re s ponsibility

to inte rve n e to pre ve n t the a c tivity be c a use the y are una ble or unwilling to oppose it.” Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly n c h , 846 F.3d 351, 363 (9th C ir. 2017) (quoting

Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th C ir. 2014)). C ontra

ry to the gove rnm e nt’ s a

rgum e nt, Barajas-Rome r o did not
artic ulate a ne w sta

nda rd for a c quie sc e nc e and quote d dire c tly from Garc ia-Milian
. W e the re fore de c line to re m and for c onside ra tion of Barajas-Rome r o . In Bromfie ld v
. Muk

ase y , we he ld tha

t “ the re c ord c om

pe l[le d] the
c onc lusion tha

t the Ja m a ic an gove rnm e nt not only a c q uie sc e s in the torture of ga y m e n, but is dire c tly

involve d in suc h torture ,” ba se d on a la w, like Gha

na ’ s, tha t

“ c rim ina liz e s hom ose xua l c onduc t.” 543 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th C ir. 2008). A la w that c rim i na liz e s hom ose xua l c onduc t “ is a n indic a tor of the gove rnm e n t’ s position towa rd ga y m e n, a s is thefa c t

tha t the polic e ge ne ra lly

do not inve s tiga

te
c om pla i nts of hum an rights a

buse s suffe re d

by ga y m e n.” Id.

8Not only doe s Gha na have a la w tha t c rim ina liz e s hom ose xua l c o nduc t, othe r e vide nc e in the re c ord points to Gha nia n offic ia ls’ a c quie sc e nc e to torture of LGB T pe rsons. Va

rious politic a l le a de rs c a ll for rounding up LGB T pe rsons, a nd
e ve n c a ll for the m

to be ly nc he d. The U.S. Hum an R ights R e port like wise sta te s that “ the attitudeof the polic e towa rd LGB T pe rsons” wa s a fa c tor “ pre ve nting vic t im s from

re porting inc ide n ts of a

buse .” The re c ord a lso c onta ins m ultiple
e xam ple s of polic e e x tortion of ga y m e n. Thus, like

in Bromfie ld , we find tha t the
re c o rd c om

pe ls the fa c tua l finding tha t the gove rnm e nt a c quie sc e s to torture of LGB T pe rsons.

b. Four CAT Fac tor s In a sse ssing whe the r future torture is m ore like ly tha n not, thefa c t ors to be
c onside re d a

re : (1) “ [e ] vide nc e of pa st torture ” ; (2) the a bility of the a p p lic ant to
re loc a te ; (3) “ [e ] vide nc e of gross, fla grant or m a ss viola tions of hum an

rights within thec ountry

of re m o v a l” ; a

nd (4) “ [o] the r re le va

nt inform ation re ga

rding
c onditions in the

c ountry of re m ova l.” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(3)(i)-(iv). Any re a s ona ble trie r of fa c t would bec om p e lle d to c onc lude tha

t Aba ss would m ore like l y

tha n not be s ubje c t to tortureif re m ove d to Gha n a ba se d on a ll four fa c tors. First, a s the B IA found, Aba s s suffe re d pa s t torture . S e e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(3)(i). Aba s s’ s pa st torture is the prim ary fa c tor we pe rm issibly

re ly on 9whe n de c iding whe the r he would m o re like ly tha n not suffe r future torture in Gha na . Se e A v e n d

ano-He r nande z v . Ly nc h , 800 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th C i r. 2015) (quoting N

uru v . Gonzale

s , 404 F.3d 1207, 1217–18 (9th C ir. 2005)). Se c ond, the B IA’ s finding tha t Aba ss would bea

ble to sa fe ly

re loc at e wa s not supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide n c e and the B IA e rrone ously only c onside re d this fa c tor in thefour-fa c tor a na ly sis. Aba ss’ s te s tim ony supports tha

t he wa s in hiding for a

m o nth be fore fle e ing Gha na and tha t re l oc a t ion is diffic ult be c a use of pe rva s ive hom ophobic attitude s throughout the c ountry . Aba ss provide d two de c la ra tions sta

t ing tha t he would be kille d upon re t urning to Gha

na , a nd one of the m e ve n sta te d tha t his love r ha d a lre a dy

be e n kille d . Furthe r, we have e sta blishe d tha

t C A T c ann ot be de nie d

on the ba sis of a

pe titione r be i ng e xpe c te d to c o nc e a l his or he r ide ntity or be lie fs. Edu v . Holde r , 624 F.3d 1137, 1146 (9th C ir. 2010); se e also K

arouni v
. Gonzale

s , 399 F.3d 1163, 1173 (9th C ir. 2005) (holding tha

t a sy lum a pplic ants c annot be a ske d to c onc e a l the ir se xua l orie ntation
and the re is no “ a

ppre c i a ble diffe re nc e be twe e n

. . . be ing pe rse c ute d for be ing a hom ose xua l a

nd be ing pe rse c ute d for e nga ging in homose x ua l a c ts” ). The B IA
a lso did not c onside r “ whe the r re loc a tion would be sa fe and re a sona

ble ,” Afriy ie , 613 F.3d a

t 937–38, e ve n though “ it will ra re ly be sa fe to re m ove a

pote ntia l torture vic tim

on the a s sum

p tion tha t torture will be ave rte d sim ply by re l oc a ting
10him

to a nothe r part of the c o untry .” N uru , 404 F.3d a

t 1219. As disc

usse d in Se c tion I(a ), the U.K. B orde r Age nc y R e port sta

t e s tha t re loc at ion in Gha

na is diffic u lt be c a

use hom ophobic attitude s a re so pe rva sive . In short, nothing in the
re c o rd supports the

B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Aba ss would bea

b le to sa fe ly

re loc a te . And sinc e “ no one [C AT] fa c t or is de te rm inative ,” M a ldona do v. Ly nc h, 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th C ir. 2015) (e n ba nc ), the B IA e rre d in e nding its inquiry the re . Third, Gha

n a is rife with “ gross, fla grant or m a ss viola tions of hum an rights.” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(3)(iii). The ne wspa pe r artic le s in the re c o rd are fille d with violen t a c ts towa rds ga y individuals. One artic le de sc ribe d a ga ng of y outh tha t m urde re d a m an the y be lie ve d to be ga

y and we re still c ontinuing to look for his lover. Anothe r de s c ribe d a n atta c k on a

le sbia n m arria ge c e re m ony whe re e ve ry

pe rson thought to be

le sbia n wa s strippe d na

ke d a nd “ c ha se d out of town with sticks a

nd whips.”The U.S. State De pa rtm e nt a l so de s c ribe s a

ga ng a ssa ult on “nine pe ople the y

be lie ve d to be LGB T individuals in Ja m e stown, a
ne ighborhood of Ac c ra , forc ing the m from the ir hom e s a

nd atta c king the m

with
c ane s a nd stic ks.” The he a d of Gha na ia n C o m m ission on Hum

an R ights a

nd Adm inistra

tive Justic e sta

te d that the orga

niz a tion “ w ould not fight for ga y rights be c a use hom ose x ua lity

is ille ga l.” Fina lly , Am

ne sty Inte rnationa l re porte d tha t

“ [h] um a n rights a b use s a ga inst individua

ls suspe c te d of sa

m e -se x re lations
11c ontinue , a s we ll a s unla w ful killings a

n d e xc e ssive use of forc e by polic e and
se c urity offic e rs.” Fourth, Aba ss ha s provide d “ [o] the r re l e va n t inform a tion re ga

rding
c onditions in the

c ountry of re m ova l.” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(3)(iv). The Educ a tion M i nistry vowe d “ to se ve re ly punish a ny stude nt c a

ught e nga ging in hom ose xua l or le sbia

nism a c tivitie s .” Anothe r a

rtic le de sc ribe d the polic e arre sting a

pe rson “ for re c ruiting other m e n into homose xua lity .” Am ne sty Inte rnationa l ha s a lso c onde m ne d public offic i a ls for public ly e ndorsing ly

n c hing ga y pe o ple
. No furthe r fa c t-finding is re quire d to support Aba s s’ s C AT c la im be c a use the re c ord a lre a dy

c om pe ls the c onc lusion tha

t he is e ntitle d to C AT re lie f. “ In light of [Aba ss’ s ] pa st torture , a nd unre butte d

c ountry c onditions evide nc e showing that suc h viole nc e c ontinue s to pla gue [LGB T pe rsons] in [Gha na ] , no que stions
re m a in–-[he ] wa s torture d a nd the re is a

substa ntia l da nge r tha t [he ] will be , if
re turne d.” Av e ndano-He rnande z , 800 F.3d a

t 1082. The gove rnm e n t doe s not offe r any argum e nts on them e rits of Aba ss’ s C AT
c la im and the re fore wa ive d

any c ha lle nge . Se e Martine

z v . Se ssions , 873 F.3d 665, 660 (9th C i r. 2017). B e c a use “ the B IA ha s a lre a d

y fully c onside re d [Aba s s’ s] C AT c la i m ” and C AT re lie f is nondisc re tiona ry , we only

“ re m and for the a ge nc y 12to gra

nt” withholding of rem ova l unde r C AT. Av e ndano-He rnande z, 800 F.3d a

t 1082 (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tions omitte d); Haile

v . Holde r , 658 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ B e c a use the e vide n c e Ha ile pre se n ts c om pe ls but one
c onc lusion a

nd is unrebutte d , the re is no re a son to re m and in this c a s e –-we hold that Ha ile is e ntitle d to de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C AT.” ); 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(4) (stating tha t whe n none of the sta

tutory ba rs a pply , “ a lie n

e ntitle d to [C AT] prote c tion sha l l be grante d withholding of re m o va l” ). IV . Conc lusion In sum , we grant the pe tition for re v ie w a s to Aba ss’ s a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd C AT c la im s. W e hold tha t Aba ss is sta

tutorily e ligiblefor a sy lum
and re m and so theAttorne y Ge ne ra l m ay e xe rc ise disc re t ion in gra nting a sy lum
. W e a lso hold tha

t Aba s s is e ntitle d to withholding of re m ova l unde r IIR IR

A. And be c a use we hold tha

t “ [Aba ss] ha s m e t his C AT burde n . . . he is e n title d to
m andatory

withholding of rem ova l on the ba s is of his c la im unde r the C onve ntion.” N

uru , 404 F.3d a

t 1230. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D; RE M ANDE D FO R FURT H E R PRO C E E DING S IN CO NFO RM IT Y W IT H T H IS M E M O RANDUM .

13