2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-4-2009 

# C am ar a v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-3892

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C am a r a v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 181. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/181Honora ble L ouis H. Poll ak, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the * Easter n District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 1 P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 3892 F ATOUM A CAM ARA

v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , U n ited S tate s A tto rn e yG e n e ra l,

R es pondent O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a Fi nal O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 97 530 153) B efore: S L O V ITE R and H A R D IM A N , C i rcui tJudg es,

and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge. * ( O pi ni on fi l ed Sept ember 4, 2009) OR DE R A M E NDI NG OP I NI ON P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge : T he governm enthas m oved form odi fi cat i on of footnot e 14 of the opi ni on fi l ed on S e p te m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 9 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t’ s re q u e s t is G R A N T E D IN P A R T . N O W T H E R E FO R E , I T I S O R D E R E D t hatfootnot e 14 of the opi ni on i s her eby2

A M E N D E D t o read as foll ow s: B e sid e s s h o w in g th a t th e h a rm sh e e x p e rie n c e d w a s s e v e re e n o u g h to a m o u n t to per s ecut i on, C amar a w as al s o r equi r ed t o s how t hatt he harm w as on acc ountof a s t atut or i l ypr ot ect ed gr ound – e. g. , herr ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , s oci al gr oup m e m b e rs h ip , o r p o litic a l o p in io n . See 8 U . S. C . §§ 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) , 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) . T he B I A concl uded thatC amar a di d nots uffe rpas tper s ecut i on “as s um i ng ar guendo t hatt he governm entoffi ci al s w ho came t o [C amar a’ s ] fami l yhom e on one oc cas i on i n O ct ober 2002, fal s el yarr es t ed herfatherforas s i s t i ng r ebel for ces , and thr eat ened [ C amar a] and h e r f a m ilyth a t th e yw o u ld re tu rn to th e f a m ilyh o m e f

o r th e m a s w e ll, w e re c e n tra lly
m o ti v ated b ya p rotec ted g rou n d u n d er the A ct. ” P ri o r t o stat ing this co n clus ion , the B IA sta ted th a t it“ a g re e [ d ] w ith th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e th a t [ C a m a ra ] h a s f a iled to demonst r at e pas tper s ecut i on, ” ci t i ng t o pages 7- 9 of the I J ’ s opi ni on. I n t hos e page s of h is o p in io n , th e IJ s ta te s , in tera lia , t hat“no obj ect i ve evi dence w as pr es ent ed byt he
r es pondentfort he C our tt o even i nfert hatherfatherw as abduct ed bym ember s of the death s quad on ac countof hi s ethni ci t yorr el i gi on. ” H ad the B IA ex p resslyad o p ted th e IJ’s co n clus ion that C am ara ’s fa ther’s a b d u c tio n w a s n o t o n a c c o u n t o f a sta tu to rilyp ro tec ted g ro u n d , tha t h o ld in g m ig h t, a rg u a b ly , h a v e p ro v id e d a n in d e p e n d e n t b a sis f o r th e B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t C a m a ra d id notexper i ence pas tper s ecut i on. B utcons i der i ng t he B I A ’ s bl ankets t at ement of agr eementw i t h t he I J i n conj unct i on w i t h t he B I A ’ s deci s i on t o nevert hel es s anal y ze the3

ca se u n d er the assu m p ti o n that C am ara ’s fa ther w as abduct ed on ac countof a pr ot ect ed gr ound undert he A ct , w e ca nnott el l w hethert he B I A m eantt o adoptt he I J ’ s concl us i on th a t C a m a ra ’s f

a th e r w a s n o t ab d u c ted o n a c c o u n t o f a p ro tec ted g ro u n d . W e m u st, th e re f o re , re v ie w th e B IA ’s o p in io n a s if it d id n o t a d o p t th e IJ ’s c o n c lu s io n . See Abdul ai
v . A s h c r o ft, 2 3 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 9 n .2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ In th is c a se , the B IA n e v e r e x p re ss ly

‘ adopt ed’ anypor t i on of the I J ' s opi ni on orannounce d t hati tw as defe r r i ng t o anyof the I J ' s fi ndi ngs . W e ther efor e r evi ew onl yt he B I A ' s deci s i on. ”) O n r e m a n d , t h e B I A m a y w i s h t o c o n s i d e rt h i s i s s u e m o r e d i r e c t l y.
B y theCourt , /s/ L ouis H. Poll ak Di s tri ctJu d ge Dated: November

4, 2009