IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60604

MIKAILU JALLOH, also known as Mikailou Diallo, 

 Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A209 991 615

Before KING, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The petitioner in this case fled his home country after receiving death 

threats for writing a newspaper article calling for the abolition of female 

genital mutilation. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration 

Appeals rejected his request for asylum, ruling that his opposition to female 

genital mutilation did not qualify as a political opinion and failing to analyze 

his argument that he had a well-founded fear of future persecution. Because 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 30, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60604 Document: 00515252562 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2019
No. 18-60604

2

this was error, we grant the petition in part and remand the case for further 

proceedings.

I.

A.

Petitioner Mikailu Jalloh is a citizen of Sierra Leone who is seeking 

asylum in the United States. Jalloh fled Sierra Leone after a conflict with the 

Bondo, also known as the Sande, a powerful secret society in Sierra Leone that 

supports, perpetuates, and sometimes forcibly imposes female genital 

mutilation. The vast majority of women in Sierra Leone have experienced some 

form of genital mutilation.

In October 2016, Jalloh’s girlfriend told him that the Bondo intended, 

against her will, to mutilate her. Jalloh, who occasionally wrote articles for a 

local newspaper, decided to investigate the Bondo and to write an article about 

them. In November 2016, after Jalloh had been conducting interviews about 

female genital mutilation, five members of the Bondo showed up at his house 

at dusk. They blamed Jalloh for his girlfriend’s aversion to them, and they 

threatened to kill him if he continued to interfere. Jalloh replied that he 

intended to expose them. 

Jalloh’s article about female genital mutilation and the Bondo was 

published in December 2016. The article, which ran under the headline 

“Abolish Female Genital Mutilation Now & Save Our Girls,” called on the 

“government to pass laws that totally abolish the practice in Sierra Leone.” 

The following week, a group of Bondo supporters carrying sticks and rocks 

came at night to Jalloh’s house and threatened to burn it down if he did not 

emerge. After Jalloh’s sister-in-law told the mob that Jalloh was not at home, 

they searched the house and, not finding him, told her that Jalloh was “a 

walking dead man.” Jalloh’s sister-in-law called Jalloh and informed him of 

what had transpired, and Jalloh immediately fled. 

 Case: 18-60604 Document: 00515252562 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2019
No. 18-60604

3

B.

On January 17, 2017, Jalloh presented himself at the border in Laredo, 

Texas, and requested asylum. He was placed into removal proceedings, where

he argued that he was eligible for asylum and withholding of removal. The 

immigration judge disagreed. Although crediting Jalloh’s testimony, the 

immigration judge ruled that “[t]he threats made to [Jalloh] were criminal and 

not equivalent to persecution on account of a political belief. The motive of the 

perpetrators has nothing to do with [Jalloh]’s politics, but was retaliatory 

because of interference with a cultural practice.” The immigration judge also 

noted that “[t]he government [of Sierra Leone] has taken no action against 

[Jalloh].” 

The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed and adopted the 

immigration judge’s decision. The board agreed that Jalloh was threatened 

“because he was critical of a cultural practice” and not because of “his political 

opinion.” The board further determined that “the threats [Jalloh] received” 

were “insufficient to establish past persecution.” Finally, the board agreed with 

the immigration judge that “the government has not sought to harm [Jalloh] 

due to his activities as a journalist.” The board thus ruled that Jalloh was not 

eligible for asylum and that, a fortiori, he was not eligible for withholding of 

removal. Jalloh timely filed a petition for review.

II.

Asylum may be granted to those who are “‘unwilling to return to’ their 

home country ‘because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution’” 

based on “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, 

or political opinion.” Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir. 

2006). Jalloh argues that he qualifies because he faced persecution by the 

Bondo in Sierra Leone and reasonably fears persecution if he returns due to 

his political opinion: namely, his opposition to female genital mutilation. The 

 Case: 18-60604 Document: 00515252562 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/30/2019
No. 18-60604

4

Attorney General denies that the threats that Jalloh received amounted to 

persecution but otherwise concedes that the Board of Immigration Appeals 

erred and argues that the case should be remanded. 

A.

“A political opinion is ‘one that is expressed through political activities 

or through some sort of speech in the political arena,’” such as by 

“[c]ampaigning against the government, writing op-ed pieces, urging voters to 

oust corrupt officials, . . . or speaking out repeatedly as a ‘public gadfly.’” Liu 

v. Holder, 692 F.3d 848, 852 (7th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). “Criticism of 

government actions or policies generally may be considered the expression of 

political opinion.” Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009). In this 

case, Jalloh wrote a newspaper article calling on his government to “take 

Action Now,” stating that “[p]oliticians have refused to talk about [female 

genital mutilation] for fear of losing votes while the Government who declared 

a ban on the practice has failed to take actions against perpetrators.” In the 

article, Jalloh complained that “governments after governments have failed to 

put relevant mechanism[s] in place to save young girls” from mutilation and 

urged the “government to pass laws that totally abolish the practice in Sierra 

Leone.” This is quintessentially political speech, and the Attorney General does 

not argue otherwise.1

Because of Jalloh’s article, a mob came to his house and threatened his 

life. Jalloh’s political opinion was thus a central reason for the persecution that 

he claims. The immigration judge’s conclusion—which the Board of 

Immigration Appeals affirmed—that the threats against Jalloh had “nothing 

to do with [his] politics” is unsupportable and constituted error.

 

1 The Attorney General instead speculates that the board must have overlooked “the 

portions of [the one-page] article in which [Jalloh] criticized the government of Sierra Leone 

and advocated for the government to abolish [female genital mutilation].” 

 Case: 18-60604 Document: 00515252562 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/30/2019
No. 18-60604

5

B.

Establishing that he was threatened based on his political opinion gets 

Jalloh only part of the way there. He must also prove that those threats 

amounted to “past persecution” or gave rise to “a well-founded fear of future 

persecution.” Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir. 2018).

Persecution can take many forms and “need not be physical.” Morales v. 

Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 

F.3d 579, 583 (5th Cir. 1996)). We have said that persecution includes not only 

“threats to life, confinement, [and] torture,” id. (citation omitted), but also “the 

deliberate imposition of severe economic disadvantage or the deprivation of 

liberty, food, housing, employment or other essentials of life,” Tesfamichael v. 

Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 114 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Abdel-Masieh, 73 F.3d at 

583). Nevertheless, to qualify as persecution, conduct must be “extreme,”

Morales, 860 F.3d at 816 (quoting Tesfamichael, 469 F.3d at 116); “persecution 

generally ‘requires more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or 

intimidation,’” id. (citation omitted). What is more, to trigger eligibility for 

asylum, the persecution must have been inflicted “by the government or forces 

that [the] government is unable or unwilling to control.” Tesfamichael, 469 

F.3d at 113.

Because the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted the immigration 

judge’s ruling, we review both the board’s and the immigration judge’s 

decisions. See Sealed Petitioner v. Sealed Respondent, 829 F.3d 379, 383 (5th 

Cir. 2016). “We review the legal conclusions of the IJ and the BIA de novo, and 

we review their factual findings for substantial evidence.” Id. Whether 

particular conduct amounts to persecution “is a question of law that we review 

de novo.” Morales, 860 F.3d at 816.

Here, the board determined that the two threats made against Jalloh did 

not constitute past persecution because they were insufficiently severe. But as 

 Case: 18-60604 Document: 00515252562 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/30/2019
No. 18-60604

6

to Jalloh’s fear of future persecution, the board found only (1) that it was 

unconnected to a political opinion and (2) that “the government has not sought 

to harm [Jalloh] due to his activities as a journalist.” For the reasons already 

mentioned, this first finding was erroneous.

The second finding—that the government of Sierra Leone was unlikely 

to persecute Jalloh—misapprehends Jalloh’s concern. Jalloh’s asylum 

application stated that he feared that if he returned to Sierra Leone, he would 

“be killed by the Bondo people.” And he presented considerable evidence that 

the Sierra Leonean government was either unable or unwilling to stop the 

Bondo. Among other incidents, the record reveals that, on one occasion, the 

Bondo marched four journalists through the streets naked because they had 

reported negatively on female genital mutilation. On another occasion, the 

police did arrest one of the Bondo for kidnapping a woman and cutting her 

genitals, but hundreds of Bondo supporters descended on the police station and 

successfully demanded the arrestee’s release. Jalloh also testified that a 

preacher had recently been burned alive for opposing the Bondo. 

The Board of Immigration Appeals failed to analyze whether Jalloh’s 

fear of persecution by the Bondo was well founded, or whether the government 

of Sierra Leone was unable or unwilling to control the Bondo. When the board 

fails to address a key issue, remand is generally the “proper course” of action. 

INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (quoting Fla. Power & Light 

Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985)). Jalloh argues that we need not remand 

on this issue because the evidence in the record is overwhelming. But “[w]here 

an agency has failed to comply with its responsibilities, we should insist on its 

compliance rather than attempt to supplement its efforts.” Abdel-Masieh, 73 

F.3d at 585 (quoting Sanon v. INS, 52 F.3d 648, 652 (7th Cir. 1995)). Although 

it is sometimes appropriate for this court to decide such an issue in the first 

instance, such occasions are “rare,” Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. at 16 (quoting 

 Case: 18-60604 Document: 00515252562 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/30/2019
No. 18-60604

7

Fla. Power, 470 U.S. at 744), and we see no special reason to do so here.2

Accordingly, we remand this case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for a 

decision on Jalloh’s asylum eligibility that properly considers his fear of future 

persecution by the Bondo.

III.

Jalloh also seeks withholding of removal. This requires him to show that 

“there is a clear probability that [his] life or freedom w[ould] be threatened 

based upon [his] . . . political opinion” were he returned to Sierra Leone.

Morales, 860 F.3d at 817. Because this standard is “higher than the standard 

for asylum, . . . the failure to establish a well-founded fear for asylum eligibility 

also forecloses eligibility for withholding of removal.” Orellana-Monson v. 

Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). Once the Board of Immigration 

Appeals determined that Jalloh was ineligible for asylum, it summarily 

concluded that he was also ineligible for withholding of removal. Because the 

board must reassess Jalloh’s asylum request, so too must it reassess whether 

he is eligible for withholding of removal. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 306 

(5th Cir. 1997).

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is GRANTED in part, and the case 

is REMANDED to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion.

 

2 Jalloh originally argued that remand would unnecessarily prolong his stay in 

immigration detention. At oral argument, however, counsel for the Attorney General

represented that Jalloh is no longer in custody.

 Case: 18-60604 Document: 00515252562 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/30/2019