T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MOHA ME D T R AWAL L Y, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 71581 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 101- 862 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r2, 2010

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: H A W K IN S , M cK E O W N , an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P e t i t i one rM oha m e d T r a w a l l y( “ T r a w a l l y ” ) s e e ks r e vi e w of the B oa r d of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) deci si on af fi rm i ng the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) de ni a l of hi s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe 

# FI LED SEP 21 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST r a w a llym a k e s n o a r g u m e n ts s p e c if ic to w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l o rh is 1 c la im u n d e rC A T , s o w e d o n o t c o n s id e rth e s e c la im s o n ap p e a l. C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . T r a w a l l ya r gue s tha the w a s pe r s e c ut e d by 1 S i e rr aL e one a n r e be l s be c aus e of hi s pol i t i c a l a f

f i l i a t i on a nd r e l i gi on, a nd tha the f e a r s f orhi s l i f e i f he w e r e t o be r e m ove d t o S i e rr aL e one . T he B I A a f f i rm e d the I J ’ s di s m i s s a l of

hi s appl i c a t i on on the gr ound tha tc ondi t i ons i n S i e rr aL e one ha ve c ha nge d s uc h tha tT r a w a l l yno l onge rha s aw e l l f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on s houl d he be f

or c e d t o r e turn. T he B I A a l s o f ound adi s c r e t i ona rygr a ntof a s y l um f o rh u m a n ita r ia n r e lie f

u n d e r8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( iii) w a s n o t w a rr a n te d in T r a w a lly ’s c a s e . A l though T r a w a l l yr a i s e d the i s s ue of hum a ni t a r i a n r e l i e f

i n hi s not i c e of appeal , he di d n otaddres s the i ss ue i n h i s bri ef t o the B IA . N everthel es s, the B IA c ons i de r e d the i s s ue . A s the gove rnm e nta c know l e dge s , “ [ c ] l a i m s a ddr e s s e d on th e m e r its b yth e B I A a r e d e e m e d e x h au s te d ,” e v e n if th e c la im s w e r e n o t r a is e d in the bri ef i ng before the B IA . A hm ed v. H ol der, 56 9 F . 3d 10 09 , 10 12 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) . I n de ny i ng r e l i e f

, the B I A s i m pl ys a i d tha t“ adi s c r e t i ona rygr a ntof a s y lu m . . . is n o t w a rr a n te d in th is c a s e .” T h e B I A o f f e r e d n o r e a s o n s o ra n a ly s is . T h e d if f ic u ltyis th a t th is c o n c lu s io n , w ith o u t a n ys u p p o rt o re x p la n a tio n , f a ils to pr ovi de us w i th aba s i s t o r e vi e w the de c i s i on. S e e L ope z - G a l a r z av. I N S , 99 F . 3d954, 962 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( “ A m or e s e r i ous pr obl e m w i th the B I A ’ s de c i s i on,

ho w ever , i s thatthe B IA si m pl y f ai l ed t o anal yz e w hether L op ez -G al ar zahad suff er ed un der a troci ou s f

orm s of pas tpers ec ut i on . ”) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed); s e e a l s o M ovs i s i a n v. A s hc r of t , 395 F . 3d 1095, 1098 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( “ W e ha ve l on g h el d thatthe B IA abuses i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tfa i l s t o p rovi de a r ea soned e xpl a na t i on f

ori t s a c t i ons . ” ) ; M a tt i s v. I N S , 774 F . 2d 965, 968 ( 9th C i r . 1985) ( “ [ T ] he B I A ’ s f

a i l ur e t o a ddr e s s the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d ort o a rt i c ul a t e r e a s ons f or i t s ne ga t i ve c onc l us i on w a s a n abus e of di s c r e t i on r e qui r i ng r e ve r s a l a nd r e m a nd. ” ) . T he B I A m us t , a tthe ve ryl e a s t , r e c i t e the f a c t s tha ts upportagr a ntor deni al of hu m ani t ar i an as yl um , com pare these fa ct s t o o ther c as es , such as M att er of C he n, 20 I & N D e c . 16 ( B I A 1989) , a nd e xpr e s s i t s de t e rm i na t i on w he the rornot P et i t i on erhas a l l eged tre atm entsuff i ci ent l y “ atroci ou s” t o w arranthu m ani t ar i an re l i ef . W e grantthe pet i t i on as t o thi s c l ai m and rem and t o the B IA for f urther p r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is d is p o s itio n . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport e d the B I A ’ s c onc l us i on tha tc ountryc ondi t i ons i n S i erraL eone had chang ed such thatT raw al l y no l on ger had a w el l foun ded fear of pers ec ut i on . S ee IN S v. E l i as -Z ac hari as , 50 2 U . S . 47 8, 48 1 (19 92 ). T he B IA m a de i t s de t e rm i na t i on ba s e d on the S t a t e D e pa rtm e ntc ountryr e porta nd not e d the s p e c if ic f a c ts s u p p o rtin g its c o n c lu s io n .PETI TI O N G R A N TED I N PA R T A N D D EN I ED I N PA R T. E a c h p a rty

s h a ll b e a rits o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l.