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 AR IE-R OSE B AB I,

Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-70984 Age n c y No. A070-068-071
M EM O R ANDUM *

JOSEPH B . B AB I; AZADOUHIE B AB I,

Pe t i tione rs, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-70988 Age n c y Nos. A070-068-125

A070-068-126

On Pe t ition for R e v ie w of Orde rs of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm itte d June 6, 2017 

# FIL ED OCT 25 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia

B e fore : REINHAR

DT a nd KOZINSKI, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B ER G , * * Distric t Judge
. Jose ph B a

bi a nd his da ughte r, M arie -R o se B a

bi, a re c itiz e ns of Le ba

non a nd Syria c C atholic s . The y

pe tition for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing the ir a

ppe a ls from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing the i r a p plic ations for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e re vie w for substa n tia l e vide nc e , Aguile ra-C

ota v . IN S , 914 F.2d 1375, 1378 (9th C ir. 1990), a nd we grant a

nd
re m and the pe tition for re v i e w in pa rt, a nd de ny in pa rt.
1. The B IA a ffirm e d the IJ’ s finding tha t, a l though theM r. and M s. B a bi’ s te stim ony wa s c re d ible , the ha

rm s the y e xpe rie nc e d in Le ba

n on did not rise

to the le ve l of pa st pe rse c ution. W e c onc l ude tha t this de t e rm i nation is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e .
a. J ose ph Babi

* * The Honora

ble Te rre nc e B e rg, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion. 2M r. B a bi’ s c la i m for a sy lum

and withholding of re

m o va l is ba se d on four disc re te inc ide nts: two be atings whic h took pla c e in 1980 a nd 1983, re spe c tive ly , and two c hurc h bom

bings in 1989. The

B IA prope rly c onside re d a l l four of the
e ve nts in a sse ssing M r. B a bi’ s pa st pe rse c ution. S

e e K n e z e v ic v . Ashc roft , 367 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th C ir. 2004). TheB IA e rre d, howe ve r, in disc ounting the se ve rity of M r. B a bi’ s ha rm a s a re sult of e a c h of the se inc ide n ts. First, the B IA im

prope rly c onc l ude d tha

t be c a u se M r. B a

bi “ did not se e k
m e dic a l c are ” a fte r the first be ating, his c l a im tha t his injurie s we re se rious a nd la sting wa s dim inishe d. This c onc lusion ignore s the fa c t tha t M r. B a bi did re quire , and proc ure , m e dic a l tre atm e n t a fte r the be ating. M r. B a bi c re dibly

te stifie d tha t,
a fte r the be at i ng, he suffe re d ba c k injurie s an d a ne rvous bre akdown. Howe ve r, be c a use he worke d in a

pha rm a c y in Le ba non, M r. B a

bi wa s a b le to obta in the
m e dic at ion re quire d to tre at his injurie s. Thus, M r. B a bi did se e k m e d ic a l c are
— he just sought it from

him se lf. W e have ne v e r he l d tha t, in orde r to de m onstra

te se rious injury , a

pe titione r m

u s t se e k outside m e dic a l tre atm e nt. Inde e d, suc h a rule would m ake littlepra c tic a l se nse . W e would not c onc lude tha t a doc tor who susta ine d a se rious injury

wa s una ble to de m o nstra

te pe rse c ution be c a

use he stitc he d the wound him se lf. Nor would wepe na l iz e a pe titione r without he a lth insura nc e for se e king c are outsidethe form a l m e dic a l sy ste m , if tha t is wha t he
3c ould a fford. He re , M r. B a bi’ s injurie s following the first be ating did re quire
m e dic a l tre atm e nt, but hewa s a ble to providesuc h c are ba se d on his own
re sourc e s. The B IA the re fore e rre d in a sse ssing these v e rity of M r. B a

bi’ s injurie s a fte r the first a

tta c k. Se c ond, the B IA im

prope rly c onc lude d tha

t M r. B a bi fa ile d to se e k m e dic a l tre atm e n t for injurie s a

rising dueto the se c ond be ating. TheB oa rd disc ounte d the
se ve rity of M r. B a

bi’ s injurie s be c a

use it found tha

t he fa ile d to se e k “ m e dic a l tre atm e n t for injurie s susta ine d in the se c ond be ating, a l though hedid se e k m e dic a l
c are for the psoria sis tha

t a ppe are d 2 we e ks a fte r the be ating.” This a n a ly sis ignore s the fa c t tha

t M r. B a bi re pe ate dly

sta te d tha t the psoria sis wa s c a use d by the
se c o nd be ating. Psoria sis m a y be an unusua l injury

to susta in a s the re sult of a be ating, but tha

t doe s not ne gate its re le va nc e to the de gre e of M r. B a bi’ s ha rm . R athe r, c ontra

ry to the B IA’ s c onc lusion, his e fforts to se e k m e dic a l c are for his
c ondition, inc luding tra

ve ling to Europe

for tre atm e nt, in fa c t stre n gthe n his c la im that the injurie s he susta ine d due to the se c ond be ating we re la sting a nd se ve re . Third, the B IA im

prope rly c onc lude d tha

t M r. B a bi’ s c la i m to pa s t pe rse c ution wa s unde rm ine d by the fa c t tha

t he le ft a nd re turne d to Le ba

non thre e tim e s during the six-y e ar pe riod be twe e n the se c ond be ating a nd the c hurc h bom bings. TheB IA is c o rre c t tha t “ an a lie n’ s history

of willingly

re turning to his
4or he r hom e c ountry m ilita te s a ga inst a finding of pa s t pe rse c ution.” Loho v
. Muk ase y , 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th C ir. 2008). S e e also K u mar v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 520, 524 (9th C ir. 2006) (finding tha t pe t itione r’ s “ volunta

ry re turn” to his hom e c ountry wa s “ i ndic ative of [his] be lie f that it would be sa fe and
a ppropria te for him to live ” the re ). Ye t the s e c a se s m ust be re a d in light of the

rule that pa st pe rse c ution is a

c um ulative c onc e pt. He re , M r. B a bi’ s c la im of pa s t pe rse c ution re s ts upon the a ggre gate e ffe c t of the two be atings p lus the two c hurc h bom bings. M ore o ve r, he te stifie d tha t he did not a

p ply for a s y lum

during his first visit to the

Unite d State s be c a

use , at the tim e , the re wa s a c e a se -fire in pla c e in Le ba non. Thus, the fa c t tha

t he le ft a nd re turne d to Le ba

non a fte r the be atings, be fore fle e ing pe rm ane ntly a fte r the bom

bings, doe s not unde rm ine his c la im tha t
a ll four inc ide nts, toge the r, rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Although Jose ph’ s be atings m a

y not ha ve be e n suffic ie nt to pe rsua de him to a ba ndon his home c ountry , he ne e d only

show tha t the tota l e ffe c t of a ll of his pa st ha rm s c o m pe lle d him to le ave . Fina lly , the B IA fa ile d to c onside r a de quate ly M r. B a bi’ s c la im tha t he suffe rs from

la sting e m otiona l tra

um a a s a re sult of his e xpe rie nc e s in Le ba n on. As
we have he ld, “pe rse c ution m ay be e m otiona l or psy c hologic a l, a s we ll a s phy sic a l.” Mashiri v
. Ashc roft , 383 F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th C ir. 2004), as ame nde d
5(Nov. 2, 2004), ame nde d , No. 02-71841, 2004 W L 2435489 (9th C ir. Nov. 2, 2004). He re , be c a

use M r. B a

b i’ s te stim ony

wa s found c re dible , he wa s not re quire d to provideany

c orroborative e vide nc e in support of his c la im s. Se e Ade n v . Holde r , 589 F.3d 1040, 1043-44 (9th C ir. 2009) (disc ussing the“ line of c irc uit a uthority for the proposition tha

t c orroboration c a

nnot be re quire d from

an a pplic ant who te stifie s c re dibly ” ). Ye t in dism issing Mr. B a

bi’ s a sse rtion of e m o tiona l tra um a , the B IA im prope rly re lie d upon the “ littlewe ight” it ga ve to the e xpe rt te stim ony of a
c linic a l the ra

pist. In doing so, the

B IA fa ile d to re c o gniz e tha t M r. B a bi wa s unde r no obliga tion to pre se nt e xte rna l e vide nc e or e xpe rt te stim ony , a nd tha t he in fa c t provide d c re dible te stim ony with re spe c t to his c la im

of psy c hologic a l ha

rm . M r. B a bi’ s te s tim ony

and sta te m e nts re pe ate dly

disc uss the fe ar and e m otiona l tra um a he susta ine d a s a

re sult of his be atings a

n d the c hurc h bom

bings. M ore ove r, the re is
e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t M r. B a bi ha s be e n pre s c ribe d

m e dic ation for a

nxie ty
and de pre ssion. TheB IA the re fore e rre d in c onc l uding tha t M r. B a bi did not de m onstra

te se rious e m o tiona l tra

um a a s a re sult of his alle ge d pe rse c ution in Le ba non. None of the re a sons provide d by the B IA for disc ounting the se ve rity of M r. B a bi’ s ha rm in Le ba non is supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . In light of the

6c um

ulat ive e vide nc e of M r. B a bi’ s phy sic a l injurie s a

nd e m otiona l tra

um a , we c onc lude tha

t he ha s de m onstra

te d ha rm rising to the le ve l of pe rse c ution.

b. Marie -RoseBabi

As with he r fathe r, the B IA found tha t M arie -R o se B a

bi did not dem onstra

te ha rm rising to the le ve l of pa st pe rse c ution. As with he r fa the r, we c onc lude tha

t substa ntia l e vide nc e doe s not support this de te rm ination. First, in finding tha

t M s. B a bi did not dem onstra

te pa st pe rse c ution, theB IA
re lie d in pa

rt on its de te rm ination re ga rding he r fa t

he r. The B IA sta

te d tha t M s. B a bi’ s “ pa st pe rse c ution c l a im is ba se d la

rge ly on the ha rm tha t he r fathe r e xpe rie nc e d,” and the n we nt on to note tha t it ha d “ a ffirm e d the Im

m igration Judge ’ s de te rm ination tha t he r fa the r did not e sta

blish tha t the ha rm he e xpe rie nc e d in Le ba non rise s to the le ve l of pe rse c ution.” B e c a use we re je c t the B o ard’ s c onc lusion with re spe c t to M r. B a b i, its de te rm ination a s to his pa st pe rse c ution doe s not provide

substa n tia l e vide nc e for the B IA’ s finding tha t M s. B a bi a l so did not e sta blish suc h ha

rm . Se c ond, the B IA fa ile d to prope rly a c c ount for the fa c t tha

t M s. B a b i wa s a c hild whe n the a lle ge d pe rse c ution oc c urre d. Whe n a pe titione r se e ks re lie f on the
7ba sis of ha

rm e xpe rie nc e d a s a

c hild, theIJ m

u s t “ look a

t the e ve nts from

the ir pe rspe c tive , [and] m e a sure the de gre e of the ir injurie s by the i r im pa c t on c hildre n of the ir a ge s.” He rnande

z-Ortiz v . Gonzale

s , 496 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th C ir. 2007). M s. B a bi wa s five y e ars old whe n she live d through thetwo c hurc h

bom bings. Ye t the B IA fa ile d to a ddre ss how a c hild of M s. B a

bi’ s a ge would ha

ve e xpe rie nc e d
suc h e v e n ts. In doing so, the B o ard fa ile d to a ddre ss M s. B a b i’ s c re dible te stim ony re ga rding the e m otiona l tra

um a she e ndure d

a s a re sult of thee ve nts in Leba non. M s. B a bi te stifie d tha

t she ha s “ ve ry

tra um atic m e m orie s ” of he r tim e in Le ba non, to the e xte nt tha

t she fe e l s “ c om

ple te ange r” whe n she he ars Ara bic . As M s. B a

bi wrote in a sta te m e nt provide d whe n she wa s thirte e n, she re m e m b e rs “ how te rrifie d” she wa s in Le ba non, a nd tha t she would “ a lwa

y s throw up from

fe ar.” M ore o ve r, the re c o rd shows tha t M s. B a bi wa s pre s c ribe d

anti-de pre ssa

nt
m e dic at ion a

nd the re wa s te stim ony

tha t she re c e i ve d psy c h i atric tre atm e nt for
anxie ty and de pre s sion re sulting from he r tim e in Le ba

non. Give n M s. B a

b i’ s te nde r a ge , this te stim ony and re c ord e vide nc e c om pe ls the c onc lusion tha

t she did, in fa c t, suffe r se v e re e m o tiona l tra um a . Se e He rnande

z-Ortiz , 496 F.3d.a

t 1045 (“ The Guide line s for C hildre n's Asy l um C la im s a d

vise s tha t ha rm a c hild fe ars or ha s suffe re d ... m ay

be re lative ly

le ss tha n tha t of a n a dult a n d still qualify

a s pe rse c ution.” ).
8In light of the se e rrors, and the e v i de nc e in the re c ord of the tra um a e xpe rie nc e d by

M s. B a b i, we c o nc lude tha

t the B IA’ s de te rm inat ion is not supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e , a

nd tha t M s. B a bi ha s in fa c t e sta

b l ishe d ha

rm rising to the

le ve l of pa st pe rse c ution.

2. The B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t the M r. B a

b i a nd M s. B a

bi fa ile d to de m onstra

te tha t the y we re e ntitle d to re l ie f unde r C A T is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . The B a bis a re una ble to de m onstra

te tha t it is “m ore like ly

tha n not” tha t the y would be torture d if re turne d to Le ba non. 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2).

3. Ac c ordingly , we grant the pe tition for re vie w in pa rt a nd re m and to theB IA. On
re m and, the B IA m

ust de t e rm ine whe the r the B a bis, ha ving de m onstra

t e d ha rm rising to the

le ve l of pe rse c ution, a

re e ntitle d to a

pre sum ption of a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution, a n d, if so, whe the r that pre sum ption ha s be e n ove rc om e by e v ide nc e in the re c ord. Se e IN S v . Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (pe r c uriam ).

Pe tition G RANT E D and RE M ANDE D in pa rt; D E NIE D in pa

rt.

9M arie -R ose B a bi v. Se ssions & Jose ph B a bi v. Se ssions, Nos. 14-70984 & 14- 70988 K O Z I NSKI , C irc uit Judge , disse nting: The B a bis’ a sy lum

c a se re sts on four e ve nts— the be at ings in 1980 a

nd 1983,
and the two c hurc h bom

bings in 1989. Sy

m pathe tic though thefam ily ’ s c la im m ay be , m y c olle a gue s e rr by

tre ating the se e ve nts a s e vide nc e of pa s t pe rse c ution. Le t’ s sta rt with thetwo be a tings. W e ’ ve he ld tha t “ an a l ie n’ s history

of willingly re turning to his or he

r hom e c ountry

m i lita te s a ga inst a

finding of pa st pe rse c ution.” Loho v. Muka se y , 531 F.3d 1016, 1017–18 (9th C i r. 2008). Sinc e M r. B a bi le ft Le ba

non a nd re turne d be twe e n the be atings a nd the bom

bings, the B IA nat ura lly found tha

t this unde rm ine d his c la im of pa s t pe rse c ution. To a void this re sult, the m a

j ority argue s tha

t “ pa st pe rse c ution is a c um ulative c onc e p t” and that “ the a ggre gate e ffe c t of the two be atings plus the two c hurc h bom

bings” is suffic i e nt to support the

pe rse c ution c la im . In othe r words, be c a use the be atings
a lone don’ t e s ta

blish pa st pe rse c ution, theB a bis’ a sy lum

c a se hinge s on the c hurc h bom bings. B ut wa r-re lat e d viole n c e doe sn’ t a utom at ic a lly rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. To find pe

rse c ution, were q

uire “ som e e vide n c e of [m otive ] , dire c t or
c irc um s ta ntia l.” INS v. Elia s-Za c aria s, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (e m pha sis in origina l). In Kne z e vic v. Ashc roft, 367 F.3d 1206 (9th C ir. 2004), we e xpla ine d 

# FIL ED OCT 25 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALSpa ge 2

the “ c ritic a l distinc t ion be twe e n pe rsons displa c e d by the ine vita ble rava ge s of wa

r (e .g., the bom

bing of London by

the Ge rm an Luftwa ffe during W o rld W ar II), an d those fle e ing from

hostileforc e s m otiva

te d by a de sire to kill e a c h a

n d e ve ry m e m b e r of tha t group (e .g., the de struc t ion of the Je wish ne ighborhoods on the Ea ste rn front of Europe by the Einsa tz gruppe n, who followe d the Ge rm a n W e hrm a c ht in W

W II).” Id. at

1211–12. The m a jority he re blurs this distinc

tion. It’ s pla in from the re c ord tha t the Le ba ne se c onflic t wa s a c ivil wa r, not a ge noc ide : Dive rse re ligious a nd politic a l groups we re a ll vy ing for powe r. For e xam p le , in proc e e dings be fore the im m igration judge , M r. B a

bi e xpla ine d tha

t his “ c ousin wa s fighting in a group try ing to prote c t the inte re sts of Sy ria c C atholic s.” And it’ s pre c ise l y be c a use the Le ba ne se wa r involve d

m ultiplefa c tions tha

t we don’ t know who c om m itte d the
c hurc h bom bings. TheB a

bis the m s e lve s a

re n’ t sure : M r. B a

b i’ s son sta

te d in 1999 tha t “ [i] t wa s the Syria

ns or the Isra e li [sic ] . The y both use d to bom

b us. It
wa s two diffe re nt c ountrie s.” B ut twe lve y e ars late r, M r. B a bi a ttribute d the atta c k to “ the Am a l, M oura ditoun [Muslim m ilitia s] , the Pa le stinia

ns, a ll of the m .” None of the se groups ove rla

p. B e c a use it’ s im

p ossibleto de te rm ine who a c tua lly
atta c k e d whom in this c a se , we have no ide a whe the r the se bom

bings we re pa

rt of
a pe rse c ution c am

p a ign or we re sim

ply c olla te ra l e ffe c ts of a

n unfolding wa

r.pa ge 3

That’ s not e nough to m e e t the sta nda rd se t by Elia s-Za c aria s. If the be atings don’ t m e e t the thre shold of pa st pe rse c ution a nd the bom bings a re n’ t pe rse c ution a

t a ll, the B a

b is’ c l a im m ust fa il: The re ’ s just not
e nough the re . W ithout m ore spe c ific e vide nc e , we should tre at the B a bis a s

“ pe rsons displa c e d by

the ine v ita

ble rava ge s of wa

r” ra the r tha

n pe rsons “ fle e ing from hostileforc e s m otiva

te d by a de sire to kill e a c h a

nd e ve ry m e m be r of tha t group[.] ” Kne z e vic , 367 F.3d a t 1211. W e should de ny

the pe tition in full.