NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 2 0

- 2 4 2 3

_____________

JESSIE OCEE, a / k

/ a Frank Owusu Bimpong

Petitioner

v.

A T T O R N E Y G E N E R

A L U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

______________

ON PE T ITION FOR REVIEW OF A FINAL ORDER OF REMOVAL BY THE

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

(AGENCY CASE NO. A074

- 234

- 588)

______________

A r g u e d J u n e 2 2 , 20 2 2

______________

Before: M C K E E

, R E S T R E P O

, and B I B A S

, Circuit Judge s

.

(Filed: August 12, 2022 )2

Whitney D. Her m andorfer [ A R G U E D ]

Mary E. Goetz

W ILLIAMS & C ONNOLLY

680 Maine Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20024

C o u n s e l f o r P e t i t i o n e r

William P. Barr

U NITED S TATES D EPARTMENT OF J USTICE

O FFICE OF I MMIGRATION L ITIGATION

P.O. Box 878

Ben Franklin S ta tion

Washington, DC 20044

Lance L. Jolley

Liza S. Murcia [ A R G U E D ]

Anthony C. Payne

U NITED S TATES D EPARTMENT OF J USTICE

C IVIL D IVISION

P.O. Box 878

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, DC 2004 4

C o u n s e l f o r R e s p o n d e n t

______________

OPI NION *

______ ________

RESTREPO

, Circui t Judge

.

P e t i t i o n e r F r a n k O w u s u B i m p o n g

, 1 a n a t i v e a n d c i t i z e n o f G h a n a

, p e t i t i o n s f o r

r e v i e w o f a d e c i s i o n b y t h e B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s ( “ B I A ” ) a f f i r m i n g t h e d e n i a l

* This d isp osition is not an opini on of the full Court and, pursuan t to I.O.P. 5.7, do es not

con stitute bind ing precedent.3

o f h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r a s y l u m a n d f

o r w i t h h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l

. F o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h

b e l o w

, w e w i l l g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n

, v a c a t e t h e B I A ’ s d e c i s i o n

, a n d r e m a n d f o r f u r t h e r

p r o c e e d i n g s

. 2

I

. 3

Bimpong a r g u e s t h a t t h e B I A e r r e d i n concluding t h a t h e f a i l e d t o e s t a

b l i s h t h a t h i s

m e m b e r s h i p i n a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l g r o u p ( “ P S G ” ) i s a n e x u s f o r t h e p e r s e c u t i o n h e f

e a r s

—

a s i s r e q u i r e d t o q

u a l i f y f o r a s y l u m o r w i t h h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l

. See 8 U.S.C. §§

1 Although Petitioner was originally placed in excl usion proceedings under the name

“Jessie Ocee” (Agency Case No. 074

- 234

- 588), h e later v eri fi ed that his name is Frank

Owusu Bimpong

.

2 We express our gratitude to Whitney D. Herman dorfer and Mary E. Goet z of Williams

& Connolly LLP for a ccepting this mat ter pro bono, and we commend the quality of their

briefing and argument in this case. Lawyers who act pro bono fulfill the highest service

that members of the bar can offer to indigent parties and the leg al profession.

3 T he BIA had jur isdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b) and 1240.15, and we exercise

jurisdiction under 8 U.S .C. § 1252. Because “the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ ’ s

decisions and orders as well as [conducted] an indepen dent analysis, we review both the

IJ ’ s and the BIA ’ s decisions and orders,” Ordonez

- Tevalan v. Att ’ y Gen. , 837 F.3d 331,

340

– 41 (3 d Cir. 20 16) , and look to the IJ ’ s opinion “only where the BIA has substantially

relied on that opinion,” Camara v. Att ’ y Gen. , 580 F.3d 196, 2 01 (3d Cir. 2009) ; see also

Huang v. Att ’

y Gen. , 620 F.3d 372, 379 (3d Cir. 2010). We review legal conclusions d e

novo, D oe v. Att ’

y Gen. , 956 F.3d 135, 141 (3d Cir. 2020), and defer to factual findings

“if they are supported by reasonable, substantial, a nd probative evidence in the record

considered a s a whole

. ” S.E.R.L. v. Att ’ y Gen. , 894 F.3d 535, 543 (3d Cir. 20 18) (quot ing

Kang v. Att’y Gen ., 611 F.3d 157, 164 (3d Cir. 2010))

. “Where, as here, the IJ finds the

applicant’s testimony to be credible and the [Board] makes no contrary finding,” the

Court “accept[s ] as u ndisputed the testimony of the applicant.” Baballah v. Ashcroft , 367

F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2004) ( quoting Singh v. I.N.S. , 94 F.3d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir.

1996) )

. Remand is proper when th e agency “has failed to adequately consider the

evidence in the record which fa vors an applicant”

— unless that evidenc e com pels a

conclusion contrary to the agency’s, in which case reversal follows. Sheriff v. Att ’ y Gen.

, 587 F.3d 584, 592 (3d Cir. 2009)

.4

1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b) (3)(A); Zheng v. Att ’ y Gen. , 549 F.3d 260, 266 (3d Cir. 2008)

.

To s atisfy the n exus requirement, “the applicant bears the burden of proving that on e

central reason for the persecution was a protected characteristic.” Gonzalez

- Posadas v.

Att ’ y G en. , 781 F.3d 677, 685 (3d Cir. 2015). A n a p p l i c a n t must show, in other words

,

that mem be rshi p in a PSG was “an essential or principal reason for the persecution,” id.

,

and not simply an “ ‘incidental, tangential, or superficial’ reason,” Ndayshimiye v. A tt ’ y

Gen. , 557 F.3d 124, 130 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting In re J

- B

- N

- & S

- M

- , 24 I. & N. Dec.

2 08, 214 (BIA 2007)).

T h e B I A e r

r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g t

h a t B i m p o n g f

a i l e d t o m e e t t h a t b u r d e n h e r e

.

A c c o r d i n g t o B i m

p o n g ’ s t e s t i m o n y

, h e w a s p e r s e c u t e d b y m e m b e r s o f t h e E n z e m a t r i b e

b e c a u s e h e

, a m e m b e r o f t h e A s h a n t i t r i b e

, o w n e d l a n d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r t r i b a l s i g n i f i c a n c e

i n E n z e m a t e r

r i t o r y

. B i m p o n g inherit e d t h e l a n d f r o m h i s u n c l e

, w h o w a s a l s o a m e m b e r

o f t h e A s h a n t i t r i b e

. H i s u n c l e w a s m u r d e r e d b y m e m b e r s o f t h e E n z e m a t r i b e b e c a u s e

t h e y d i d n o t w a n t a n y m e m b e r o f t h e A s h a n t i t o o w n t h e l a n d

. A f t e r i n h e r i t i n g t

h e l a n d

,

B i m p o n g e x p e r i e n c e d c o n t i n u e d t h r e a t s a n d a n e a r

- f a t a l a s s a u l t b y m e m b e r s o f t h e

E n z e m a

. E v e n t

u a l l y

, h e f

l e d G h a n a

.

T h e I J c r e d i t e d B i m p o n g ’ s t e s t i m o n y

, a n d t h e B I A d i d n o t d i s t u r b t h i s f i n d i n g

.

Y e t t h e B I A c o n c l u d e d t h a t B i m p o n g ’ s p e r s e c u t i o n w a s a p e r s o n a l l a n d d i s p u t e t h a t

l a c k e d a n y n e x u s t o h i s m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e A s h a n t i t r i b e

. I n d o i n g s o

, t h e B I A d e f e r r e d

t o t h e I J ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t

h a t “ t h e r e c o r d i s d

e v o i d o f a n y e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e

[ E n z e m a ] T r i b e t a r g e t e d t h e a p p l i c a n t b e c a u s e o f m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e A s h a n t i T r i b e

. ” A R

9 7 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. T h a t c o n c l u s i o n d e f i e s t h e r e c o r d

, w h i c h i s r e p l e t e w i t h e v i d e n c e5

t h a t B i m p o n g ’ s t r i b a l a f

f i l i a t i o n w a s a c e n t r a l r e a s o n f o r h i s p e r s e c u t i o n

. S

e e

, e

. g

. , AR

1 5 7

, 1 6 2

- 6 3

, 1 6 7

– 6 8

, 1 8 5

, 59 6

, 5 9 8

. F o r e x a m p l e

, Bimpong t e s t i f i e d t h a t m e m b e r s o f

t h e E n z e m a “did not want the land that [he] possessed to be owned by non

- member s of

the Enz ema tribe

, ” AR 596

, a n d t h a t h e “was a target of persecution because of [an]

intertribal dispute between the Enzema tribe and Ashanti tribe

. ” AR 598

.

I n s u m

, t h e a g e n c y ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e r e c o r d w a s d e v o i d o f a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t

B i m p o n g ’ s m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e A s h a n t i t r i b e w a s a n e x u s f o r h i s p e r s e c u t i o n w a s n o t

s u p p o r t e d b y s u

b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e

.

I II

.

F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s

, w e w i l l g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n

, v a c a t e t h e B I A ’ s d e c i s i o n

,

a n d r e m a n d f

o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s consistent w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n

.